['I-9s']
['International Labor']
12/06/2023
Copyright 2024 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
...
(a) The Administrator, through an investigation, shall determine whether a basis exists to make a finding that:
(a)(1) An attesting employer has—
(a)(1)(i) Failed to meet conditions attested to; or
(a)(1)(ii) Misrepresented a material fact in an attestation.
(Note: Federal criminal statutes provide penalties of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years for knowing and willful submission of false statements to the Federal Government. 18 U.S.C. 1001; see also 18 U.S.C. 1546.); or
(a)(2) In the case of an employer operating under the automated vessel exception to the prohibition on utilizing alien crewmembers to perform longshore activity(ies) at a U.S. port, the employer—
(a)(2)(i) Is utilizing alien crewmember(s) to perform longshore activity(ies) at a port where the prevailing practice has not been to use such workers for such activity(ies); or
(a)(2)(ii) Is utilizing alien crewmember(s) to perform longshore activities:
(a)(2)(ii)(A) During a strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute at the U.S. port; and/or
(a)(2)(ii)(B) With intent or design to influence an election of a bargaining representative for workers at the U.S. port; or
(a)(3) An employer failed to comply in any other manner with the provisions of subpart F or G of this part.
(b) Any aggrieved person or organization may file a complaint of a violation of the provisions of subpart F or G of this part.
(b)(1) No particular form of complaint is required, except that the complaint shall be written or, if oral, shall be reduced to writing by the Wage and Hour Division official who receives the complaint.
(b)(2) The complaint shall set forth sufficient facts for the Administrator to determine—
(b)(2)(i) Whether, in the case of an attesting employer, there is reasonable cause to believe that particular part or parts of the attestation or regulations have been violated; or
(b)(2)(ii) Whether, in the case of an employer claiming the automated vessel exception, the preponderance of the evidence submitted by any interested party shows that conditions exist that would require the employer to file an attestation.
(b)(3) The complaint may be submitted to any local Wage and Hour Division office; the addresses of such offices are found in local telephone directories. The office or person receiving such a complaint shall refer it to the office of the Wage and Hour Division administering the area in which the reported violation is alleged to have occurred.
(c) The Administrator shall determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the complaint warrants investigation. If the Administrator determines that the complaint fails to present reasonable cause for an investigation, the Administrator shall so notify the complainant, who may submit a new complaint, with such additional information as may be necessary. There shall be no hearing pursuant to §655.625 for the Administrator's determination not to conduct an investigation. If the Administrator determines that an investigation on the complaint is warranted, the investigation shall be conducted and a determination issued within 180 calendar days of the Administrator's receipt of the complaint, or later for good cause shown.
(d) In conducting an investigation, the Administrator may consider and make part of the investigation file any evidence or materials that have been compiled in any previous investigation regarding the same or a closely related matter.
(e) In conducting an investigation under an attestation, the Administrator shall take into consideration the employer's burden to provide facts and evidence to establish the matters asserted. In conducting an investigation regarding an employer's eligibility for the automated vessel exception, the Administrator shall not impose the burden of proof on the employer, but shall consider all evidence from any interested party in determining whether the employer is not eligible for the exception.
(f) In an investigation regarding the use of alien crewmembers to perform longshore activity(ies) in a U.S. port (whether by an attesting employer or by an employer claiming the automated vessel exception), the Administrator shall accept as conclusive proof a previous Departmental determination, published in the Federal Register pursuant to §655.670, establishing that such use of alien crewmembers is not the prevailing practice for the activity(ies) and U.S. port at issue. The Administrator shall give appropriate weight to a previous Departmental determination published in the Federal Register pursuant to §655.670, establishing that at the time of such determination, such use of alien crewmembers was the prevailing practice for the activity(ies) and U.S. port at issue.
(g) When an investigation has been conducted, the Administrator shall, within the time period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, issue a written determination as to whether a basis exists to make a finding stated in paragraph (a) of this section. The determination shall be issued and an opportunity for a hearing shall be afforded in accordance with the procedures specified in §655.625(d) of this part.
READ MORESHOW LESS
['I-9s']
['International Labor']
Load More
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2024 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.