Ahlers & Cressman Lawyers

Employment Verification Form I-9 Extended To August 31, 2012

John P. Ahlers — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:10:43 GMT

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the Office of Management and Budget has extended its approval of Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) to August 31, 2012. Accordingly, USCIS has amended the form to reflect a new revision date of August 7, 2009.

Employers may use the Form I-9 with the revision date of either August 7, 2009 or February 2, 2009. The revision dates are located on the bottom right-hand portion of the form. For more information on USCIS and its programs, or to obtain Form I-9 and the Handbook for Employers visit www.USCIS.gov/I-9

Court Rules E-Verify Will Take Effect On September 8, 2009

John P. Ahlers — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:00:00 GMT

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland upheld the legality of a federal regulation that will require many federal government contractors to use the E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of new hires, as well as certain existing employees. The regulation requires a new E-Verify clause to be included in certain federal contracts awarded or solicited on or after September 8, 2009. In a departure from the voluntary E-Verify, employers that are a party to a contract (or subcontract) containing this E-Verify clause will be required to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all new hires and all employees who perform work directly under the contract.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Janet Napolitano, Civil Action No. AW-08-3444 (D. Maryland M.D.) See Regulation 73 Fed. Reg. 67,651 (November 14, 2008).

Court of Appeals rules on wages required for electrical workers on public projects

Brett Hill — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:23:49 GMT

�

This case involved a question of whether employees for D.W. Close and Burke Electric ("Employers") who installed low voltage wiring during the construction of McCaw Hall were required to be paid the prevailing wages of "inside wiremen" as defined under the Washington Administrative Code.� The Employers argued that the work performed by the employees was within "electronic technician" scope of work as defined in WAC 296-127-01322.� L & I argued that the work performed by the employees in question fell within the "inside wiremen" scope of work and WAC 296-127-01323.� Inside wiremen were required to be paid a higher prevailing wage than electronic technicians.

The employees in question installed security and voice data systems, sound systems, audio visual systems and intercom/paging systems at McCaw Hall.� During this work, the employees pulled low voltage wiring through conduit to control panels, terminals or end devices.� The wires were pulled through conduit graded at 10 feet in length, sometimes for hundreds of feet in length.

WAC 296-127-01322 enumerates a scope of work for "electronic technicians" for the purposes of the act.

(1)�� The installation, operation, inspection, maintenance, repair and service of:

(a)�� Radio, television, and recording systems and devices.

(b)�� Systems for paging, intercommunication, public address, wired music, clocks, security and surveillance systems and mobile radio systems.

(c)�� Fire alarm and burglary systems.

(2)�� Installation of non-metallic conduits and incidental shielded metallic conduits of no longer than 10 feet nor larger than one inch, when installed for the specific purpose of carrying low voltage wiring.

(3)�� Pulling wiring through the type of conduit described under subsection (2) of the section, when the wiring is installed for the specific purpose of carrying low voltage electricity.

(4)�� All the clean up required in connection with electronic technician's work.

Both the Employers and the Department agreed that the workers pulled wire through conduits longer than 10 feet.� However, the Employers argued that such work was not excluded from electronic technician's work when it was for work prescribed in paragraphs (1) (a) (b) and (c).� The Department argued that subsection (2) was a limitation on all the work described in (1).�

To resolve the issue, the Court looked to the definition of the work performed by a "inside wireman" which essentially covered all electrical work - both low and high voltage.� The Court then reasoned that the inside wiremen's scope is a "general provision that governs the prevailing wage for electrical work not specifically delineated to electronic technicians."� The Court also determined that the regulation was ambiguous, and thus the agency's interpretation of its own rule would be given great weight.� According to the Department's records it had communicated with employee representatives and employer representatives, as far back as 1992, indicating an interpretation of the scope of work in which subsections 2 and 3 are limitations on the work authorized in subsection 1.

Therefore, the Court followed the agency's interpretation of its own rule and held that the employers violated the Act and owed the employees who performed the prescribed work the wages that they were entitled under the inside wiremen's scope of work.

Legislative Update - Trust Fund Proposal

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:51:20 GMT

The proposed legislation is an effort to cure a potential pitfall to general contractors. The problem arises when a subcontractor (or lower tier contractor) on a site has financial problems and is unable to pay its own employees' union trust fund benefits. The general often finds out after it is too late when the union files a claim against the general's bond. The general then ends up essentially paying twice. The proposed legislation will be linked to the site shortly...

Stevens v. Brink's Home Security - WA clarifies wages law

Brett Hill — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:52:32 GMT

The Washington State Legislature has not defined hours worked and cmpensability of employee travel time. The Washington Administrative Code (296-126-002(8) defines "hours worked" as "all hours during which the employee is authorized or required ... to be on duty on the employer's premises or at a prescribed work place." The WA Supreme Court found that technicians for Brink's were "on duty" while in company vehicles. Brink's controlled the technicians' personal activities and time. Technicians received job-site assingments at home via voice mail or hand-held computer. Supervisors could rediret technicians while en route to other jobs or service calls. The trucks constituted the employer's "prescribed work place." The trucks carried the tools and equipment. Technicians often completed paperwork in the trucks. Brink's requires employees to ensure that the vehicle is kept clean, organized, safe, and serviced.