Labor denies two permit renewal applications

The Department of Labor Hearing Office recently denied the permit renewal applications of two nonresident workers after their employer failed to correct multiple deficiencies in the applications.

Citing that the nonresident workers are not equally at fault in the matter, Hearing officer Jerry Cody granted them 45 days to transfer to a new employer.

The employer, Joy Enterprises Inc., asked for a continuance of the appeal hearing, citing that its company representative was sick. A company representative was needed because both the president and general manager of the company reside outside the Commonwealth.

The request was denied by Cody after citing that the employer had ample time to arrange for another person to represent the company. Cody indicated that the company had more than 20 days to make the arrangement, with the notice for the hearing given to their agent on Dec. 15, 2004. The hearing was on Jan. 5, 2005.

Cody further indicated that based on the Administrative Hearing Process Rules of Practice, continuances will only be granted in cases of prior judicial commitments, undue hardship or a showing of other good cause. Unless good cause exists for late filings, requests for continuances must be filed no later than five days prior to the date set for hearing.

The employer, however, did not submit the request until the date of the hearing, sending an agent to deliver a letter requesting the continuance. The employer did not give the agent the authority to represent the company regarding the matter.

The renewal application for Chang Nu Yuan, who was employed as a commercial cleaner, was earlier denied because of four deficiencies, including a missing certified Job Vacancy Announcement, a missing valid business license, a missing original permit, and the application was not properly filled out.

The other worker’s application, Ji Zhe Quan, had two deficiencies: missing JVA and missing valid health certificate.

The Labor Processing Section received no documents from the employer to correct the deficiencies for several months since the service of the notices. The applications were denied on April 7, 2004 and served notices of denial to the employer by mail.

The parties had 15 days to appeal, which was not done until over six months later.

“In summary, this employer failed to correct any applications’ deficiencies, failed to appeal within the statutory period, declined to attend the hearing and provided untimely request for continuance. The applications remained deficient as of the date of hearing and no facts were offered to excuse the employer’s failure to correct them,” Cody noted.

Cody also referred the employer to the Labor director who may investigate to determine the validity of the employment of another nonresident worker employed by the employer.

The company’s failure to correct the applications for Yuan and Quan and failure to appeal the denials for months raise serious questions as to whether the company is being properly managed, Cody said.

The company still employs one worker.