Tag Archive for: BALCA

Cora-Ann Pestaina

NOT SO FAST! DOL HESITANT TO FOLLOW MATTER OF HORIZON COMPUTER SERVICES ON PREVAILING WAGE VALIDITY

/1 Comment/in , /by
By Cora-Ann Pestania

My elation over the recent Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals’ (BALCA) decision in Matter of Horizon Computer Services, Inc., 2010-PER-00746 (May 25, 2011), expressed in my last blog, has proven to be short-lived. Last week, I attended the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association’s (AILA) Annual Conference on Immigration in San Diego, CA. At the conference, one of the most popular panels is the Department of Labor (DOL) Open Forum where members of AILA are permitted to directly question such bigwigs as William Carlson, Administrator, and Elissa M. McGovern, Chief of Policy Division, both of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification, U.S. Department of Labor. Naturally, the subject of Matter of Horizon Computer Services arose.

In Matter of Horizon Computer Services, the employer commenced its earliest recruitment before the Prevailing Wage Determination’s (PWD) validity period and filed the PERM after the PWD had expired. The DOL, citing 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c), denied the application because the employer did not begin its earliest form of recruitment during the PWD’s validity period. The DOL currently interprets 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) to mean that the employer must begin the earliest recruitment or file the PERM labor certification application within the PWD’s validity period and has denied PERM applications where the employer commenced recruitment before the PWD’s validity period and filed the PERM application after the PWD had expired. In Matter of Horizon Computer Services, BALCA held that the timing of the employer’s recruitment complied with the regulations in 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) and that regulatory history and fundamental fairness precluded the DOL’s interpretation of the regulation. BALCA held that the employer must initiate some recruitment during the PWD validity period but not necessarily the “earliest” recruitment.

At the AILA Conference, the DOL Open Forum panel was questioned as to whether the DOL would soon be issuing a new FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) with regard to the holding in Matter of Horizon Computer Services and whether attorneys could safely rely on this case when conducting recruitment for purposes of a PERM labor certification application. We did not get the answer we were hoping for. Instead, Ms. McGovern explained that the DOL reviews BALCA decisions just as attorneys do and that Matter of Horizon Computer Services is currently being reviewed along with BALCA’s decision in Matter of Ecosecurities, 2010-PER-00330 (June 15, 2011), which she said has a “similar fact pattern.” Ms. McGovern informed attendees that the DOL will figure out a path “in between” the two decisions and devise a directive.

In Matter of Ecosecurities, the employer commenced recruitment on May 6, 2007. The employer obtained a PWD valid from June 18, 2007 to September 16, 2007. The employer filed the PERM on Monday, September 17, 2007. The DOL Certifying Officer (CO) denied the PERM under 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) because neither the earliest date listed for a recruitment step nor the date the application was filed, fell within the PWD validity period. The employer requested reconsideration and argued that because the PWD expired on a weekend, the expiration date ought to be extended to Monday, September 17, 2007. As authority, the employer cited the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) which provides that “[i]n computing any period of time under these rules…the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and it includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government in which case the time period includes the next business day.” 29 C.F.R. § 18.4(a). The CO affirmed the denial and forwarded the case to BALCA finding that there was no reason why the employer could not have filed the application on Sunday, September 16, 2007 since the Permanent Online System (www.plc.doleta.gov) is available 24 hours a day and seven days a week. BALCA held that the OALJ Rules of Practice and Procedure cited by the employer in support of its argument that the PWD ought to be considered valid until Monday, September 17, 2007, have no bearing on the expiration date of the employer’s PWD because they only govern filings before the OALJ and, moreover, govern filings by mail on days when the office is closed. BALCA stated that while its decision “may appear to elevate form over substance,” it is an appellate body and it “simply does not have the discretion to waive the clearly stated regulatory requirements.”

BALCA had, a mere 21 days earlier, held in Matter of Horizon Computer Services, that the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) did not intend that the first recruitment step begin during the validity period, only that some recruitment step be initiated during that time and BALCA vacated the denial of the PERM application filed after the PWD’s expiration date. In light of that, why didn’t BALCA similarly hold, in Matter of Ecosecurities?

Matter of Ecosecurities is devoid of any facts that would aid in a perfect side by side comparison of the two cases. But, in Matter of Horizon Computer Services the employer placed the Job Order only 2 days before the PWD validity period and then commenced every other type of recruitment within the PWD validity period. In its decision, BALCA made an effort to point out that “the employer initiated every single recruitment step during the validity period with the exception of its first recruitment step.” In Matter of Ecosecurities, the Employer initiated its first form of recruitment 43 days before the PWD validity period. This long time period is significant. The fact that BALCA did not discuss the other forms of recruitment and when they were each initiated is significant. Since there is no discussion about the timing of the other recruitment, we can assume that no recruitment was initiated during the PWD validity period and all recruitment was initiated prior to June 18, 2007. This makes Matter of Horizon Computer Services and Matter of Ecosecurities entirely distinguishable. If the employer in Matter of Ecosecurities had initiated some recruitment within the PWD validity period, BALCA would have decided the case similar to Matter of Horizon Computer Services. Contrary to Ms. McGovern’s statements, the two cases do not have “similar fact patterns” and the DOL should not conflate the two decisions!

Nevertheless, at least for now and until the DOL issues a directive, it is safest for practitioners to continue to abide by the DOL’s erroneous interpretation of 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) and ensure that our clients either begin the earliest recruitment or file the PERM labor certification application within the PWD’s validity period. In my opinion, though, Matter of Horizon Computer Services can indeed be relied upon if the DOL has denied a PERM application where the employer commenced recruitment before the PWD validity period, initiated at least one form of recruitment during the PWD validity period and filed the PERM after the PWD had expired.

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA GETS IT RIGHT!! RECRUITMENT AND THE PREVAILING WAGE DETERMINATION’S VALIDITY PERIOD

/0 Comments/in , /by
Cora-Ann V. Pestaina

Pardon me while I take a moment to pump my fist! I am just really excited (and also relieved that sanity finally prevailed!) over the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals’ (BALCA) recent decision in Matter of Horizon Computer Services, Inc. 2010-PER-00746 (May. 25, 2011), http://j.mp/jAQRfO. Along with many fellow practitioners, I have long been irked by the Department of Labor’s (DOL) continued erroneous and hypertechnical interpretation of the rule found in 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c). I first wrote on this issue in August 2009 on www.cyrusmehta.com, in my article entitled, “How the Definition of the Word “Begin” Could Affect Your PERM Application.” http://j.mp/k1e5e6.

The DOL has long interpreted 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) to mean that the employer must begin the earliest recruitment or file the PERM labor certification application within the prevailing wage determination’s (PWD) validity period. The DOL has consistently denied PERM applications where the employer commenced recruitment before the PWD’s validity period and filed the PERM application after the PWD had expired. Rather than fight with the DOL (and suffer through the long wait in the appeals queue!), most employers simply conducted new recruitment and filed a new PERM application. In my article, I argued that the DOL’s interpretation of the rule was (1) overly narrow and contrary to the plain meaning of the regulation; and (2) contrary to the Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) intent when promulgating the regulation which was to have the employer conduct at least one form of recruitment within the PWD validity period. I expressed the hope that a well-crafted Motion to Reopen and Reconsider would bring forth a more definitive statement from BALCA.

We finally have this statement in Matter of Horizon Computer Services! In this case, the employer began its earliest recruitment by placing a job order on January 22, 2007. The employer obtained a PWD with a validity period from January 25, 2007 to June 30, 2007. The employer filed the PERM application on July 20, 2007, after the PWD had expired. The DOL denied the application because the employer did not begin its earliest form of recruitment during the PWD’s validity period and cited 20 C.F.R. §656.40(c) as authority for the denial. The employer fought back in a Request for Review and cited to the ETA’s notice of proposed rulemaking for PERM regulations wherein the ETA sought to explain the need for specific PWD validity periods and stated:

2. Validity Period of PWD
We are proposing that the SWA must specify the validity period of PWD on the PWD form, which in no event shall be less than 90 days or more than 1 year from the determination date entered on the PWDR. Employers filing LCA’s under the H-1B program must file their labor condition application within the validity period. Since employers filing applications for permanent labor certification can begin the required recruitment steps required under the regulations 180 days before filing their applications, they must initiate at least one of the recruitment steps required for a professional or nonprofessional occupation within the validity period of the PWD to rely on the determination issued by the SWA. Employment and Training Administration, Proposed Rule, Implementation of New System, Labor Certification Process for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States [“PERM”], 20 CFR Part 656, 67 Fed. Reg. 30466, 30478 (May 6, 2002).

Based on the ETA’s statements, the employer in Matter of Horizon Computer Services argued that the ETA did not intend that the employer’s first recruitment step begin during the validity period but only that some recruitment step be initiated during that time. In fact, with the exception of the job order, the employer had initiated all of its recruitment during the PWD validity period.

BALCA agreed with the employer, vacated the DOL’s denial and held that the timing of the employer’s recruitment complied with the regulations and that regulatory history and fundamental fairness precluded the DOL’s interpretation of the regulation. BALCA agreed that the ETA intended only that the employer initiate some recruitment during the PWD validity period and not the earliest recruitment.

Accordingly, under Matter of Horizon Computer Services, in order to rely on an expired PWD in the filing of a PERM application, the employer must have initiated at least one recruitment step during the PWD’s validity period. That is, the first day of at least one form of recruitment must fall within the PWD validity period. Conducting or initiating all recruitment prior to the PWD’s validity period and then filing after the PWD has expired will likely still result in a denial of the PERM application.

Matter of Horizon Computer Services is an important decision especially at this time of the year when the DOL issues PWDs with only a narrow 90-day validity period. The DOL updates its prevailing wage databases on July 1st. PWDs issued around this time of year have only a 90-day validity period as opposed to PWDs issued after July 1st which are typically valid until June 30th of the following year. Employers who initiated recruitment prior to obtaining the PWD, initiated additional recruitment during the PWD’s 90-day validity period but were then unable to file the PERM application within the brief 90-day validity period of the PWD, would previously have had no recourse.

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA ON USING A RANGE OF EXPERIENCE IN RECRUITMENT

/0 Comments/in , /by

by

Cora-Ann Pestaina

As the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) continues to pump out decision after decision, it can be difficult to find time to review each case. But I am constantly being reminded that reviewing that one BALCA decision could truly mean the difference between approval and denial. I recently came across the BALCA decision in CCG Metamedia, Inc., 2010-PER-00236 (Mar. 2, 2011) and it raised some red flags with regard to previous recruitment practices that have not faced objection from the DOL. As a background, an employer has to conduct a good faith recruitment of the labor market in order to obtain labor certification for a foreign national employee. Obtaining labor certification is often the first step when an employer wishes to sponsor a foreign national employee for permanent residence.

In CCG Metamedia, the employer filed an Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA Form 9089) for the position of “Technical Design Director” indicating that the job opportunity required 2 years of experience. In response to an Audit Notification, the employer submitted evidence of recruitment, which indicated that the employer had placed advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation, a local newspaper and on the employer’s website stating that the job opportunity requires “2-4 years of experience.” The Certifying Officer (CO) denied certification on grounds, which included that these advertisements contained experience requirements in excess of those listed on the employer’s PERM application.

The employer filed a Request for Reconsideration arguing that the “Technical Design Director” position indeed requires “2-4 years of experience” but that the ETA Form 9089 requires the employer to list a whole number and does not provide space to list a range of experience, thus forcing the employer to indicate only 2 years of experience. The employer also relied on Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009). In Federal Insurance, the fact that certain mandatory language pertaining to an alternative requirement under Matter of Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-465 (Feb. 2, 1998) (en banc), did not appear on the ETA Form 9089 was not fatal as there is no space on the Form for such language. BALCA held that a denial in that instance would offend fundamental fairness and due process. The employer in CCG Metamedia argued similarly that because the ETA Form 9089 does not accommodate its ability to express the requirement of 2-4 years minimum experience, it would “offend fundamental due process to deny the PERM application for failure to write the attestation on the ETA Form 9089.”

In forwarding the case to BALCA, the CO asserted, in a letter of reconsideration included in the Appeal File, that the employer’s advertisements did not represent the actual minimum requirements as required under 20 C.F.R. §656.17(i)(1). The CO argued that the employer’s requirement of “2-4 years of experience” communicated to the job applicant “a preference” that he or she possess more than 2 years of experience in order to qualify for the position and thus may have discouraged applications from US workers who met the minimum requirements (i.e. 2 years of experience). The CO further argued, citing The Frenchway Inc., 2005-INA-451, slip op. at 4 (Dec. 8, 1997), that BALCA has held that “employer preferences are actually job requirements.” The CO dismissed the employer’s arguments with regard to the ETA Form 9089 simply stating that the case was not about the shortcomings in the ETA Form 9089.

BALCA affirmed the CO’s denial of the case and held that “stating a range of experience in the recruiting materials that goes above the minimum experience requirements stated in the application inflates the job requirements in the job advertisements and does not accurately reflect the employer’s attestations on the ETA Form 9089.” BALCA cited the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(6), which require that a newspaper advertisement “[n]ot contain any job requirements or duties which exceed the job requirements or duties listed on the ETA Form 9089” and held that the employer was in violation of the regulations. BALCA agreed with the CO that this case was not about the shortcomings in the ETA Form 9089 but instead, was about the fact that the employer did not conduct an adequate test of the labor market because minimally qualified US applicants were discouraged from applying for the position. BALCA distinguished this case from Federal Insurance where the employer did not know how to comply with the requirement that Kellogg language be included on the ETA Form 9089 and stated that unlike Federal Insurance, in CCG Metamedia, the Form specifically requested the number of months of experience required for the job opportunity and this must be a discrete number, and not a range, because of the fact that the employer must state its actual minimum requirements.

After reading CCG Metamedia, one wonders whether this was correctly decided. The employer argued that its requirement for the job opportunity was indeed “2-4 years of experience” and that it was simply forced to indicate 2 years on the ETA Form 9089. But isn’t it implicit in a requirement of “2-4 years of experience” that the employer’s minimum requirement is 2 years of experience thus making the requirement listed on the recruitment and the ETA 9089 entirely consistent? The employer will clearly accept, at a minimum, 2 years of experience and a person with any level of experience upwards of 2 years (i.e. 2.5, 3 or 4 years) in the relevant area could potentially qualify for the position. The CO and BALCA claim that US workers could have been discouraged from applying for the position because the requirements indicated a “preference” that the job applicants have more than 2 years of experience. But how is this “preference” indicated? How can “[from] 2 [to] 4” be interpreted to mean “more than 2” such that a US worker would be discouraged from applying for the position? The CO and BALCA cited The Frenchway, Inc.’s for its holding that employer “preferences” are indeed requirements. But I would argue that the facts of CCG Metamedia are entirely distinguishable from those of The Frenchway, Inc. where the employer listed its preferences for a foreign language and European contacts. Clearly, a US worker with no foreign language skills and no European contacts could have been discouraged from applying for the position. On the contrary, based on the facts in CCG Metamedia, a US worker with 2 years of experience ought to have considered himself qualified based on the requirement of “2-4 years of experience.”

CCG Metamedia likely seems to imply that employers can no longer advertise seeking “2+” or “5+” years of experience as requiring applicants to have the minimum experience or more would also be perceived as a “preference, ” which will discourage applicants possessing the minimum experience from applying for the position. This would be absurd, but in labor certification land, an employer should now advertise asking for the exact years of experience for the position after CCG Metamedia. Two other recruitment scenarios immediately come to mind.

Take the case of a big corporation, recruiting for professional positions, which places an omnibus advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation indicating that it is “seeking individuals with Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees and relevant experience for the following positions” and lists all the positions, e.g. Software Engineer, Lead Technical Consultant, etc. including a brief description of the job duties for each position. All other requirements under 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f) are met. All additional professional recruitment contains the job requirements specific to each job opportunity, such as “Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or a related field and 5 years of experience in the offered position or in a position performing similar duties.” In addition, the ETA Form 9089 filed for each particular position indicates the specific job requirements for that position. In light of the holding in CCG Metamedia, will the DOL now deny these PERMs on the basis that the newspaper advertisements violated 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(6) and indicated an impermissible range (Bachelors or Master’s degree) which discouraged US workers from applying for the job opportunities?

I would argue that the ‘either/or’ requirement indicated in “a Bachelor’s or a Master’s degree and relevant experience” is not a “range.” Thus, the potential applicant cannot reasonably be confused into thinking that a position requires a Master’s degree when in actuality the employer requires only a Bachelor’s degree. Furthermore, because the ad only states “and relevant experience” it cannot be argued that US workers were discouraged from applying for any of the positions due to a perceived lack of sufficient experience. A US worker with either a Bachelor’s or a Master’s degree and even less than one year of experience should feel encouraged to apply based on the requirements listed in the newspaper advertisement. Since the employer is essentially casting a wider net, it ought to be difficult for the DOL to assert that an adequate test of the labor market was not conducted.

In another scenario, an employer is conducting recruitment for a professional position that requires a Master’s degree in Chemistry and no experience and wants to recruit using a university’s campus placement office as one of the three additional recruitment steps for professional occupations required under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(1)(ii). The university’s website allows the employer to place its advertisement but requires that certain fields be filled, e.g. job location, job status (full-time or part-time), writing sample required (yes or no), etc. One of the fields asks “experience required?” and forces the employer to pick from a list of choices limited to “0-2 years”, “3-5 years” or “over 5 years.” Based on the holding in CCG Metamedia, if the employer chooses “0-2 years” for this advertisement and then indicates on the ETA Form 9089 that the position requires no experience, the employer will have listed job requirements in excess of the requirements listed on the ETA Form 9089 in violation of 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(6). (Recall that in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, 2010-PER-00103 (BALCA Oct. 19, 2010) BALCA held that the advertising requirements listed in 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f) for advertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation or in professional journals also apply to website advertisements.) But what if it is not feasible for the employer to conduct a different type of recruitment or to choose a different university’s campus placement office? The employer may be able to protect itself against a CCG Metamedia type denial by indicating in the job description that the job opportunity requires a “Master’s degree in Chemistry and NO EXPERIENCE IS REQUIRED.” It would be difficult for the DOL to argue that US workers with no experience were discouraged from applying for this position.

I was recently confronted with a scenario similar to scenario No. 2 above and based on CCG Metamedia I suggested that new recruitment be conducted. I am reminded that regardless of previous success utilizing a particular method or type of recruitment, we cannot afford to become comfortable with the ever-changing PERM process and that these BALCA decisions provide invaluable insight into continuing to avoid the pitfalls of PERM. For a detailed overview of recent BALCA decisions that provide practice pointers, see Cyrus D. Mehta’s article, ANALYSIS OF SELECTED RECENT BALCA DECISIONS AS PRACTICE POINTERS TO AVOID PERM DENIALS

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA ON EMPLOYEE REFERRAL PROGRAMS UNDER PERM

/0 Comments/in , /by

Cora-Ann V. Pestaina

I first wrote on the subject of the employee referral program with incentives in April 2010 shortly after the Department of Labor announced at a stakeholders teleconference that it had established criteria about the employee referral program, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/dol-update-on-perm-and-prevailing-wage.html. The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently issued two decisions that mostly adopt the DOL’s new requirements regarding employee referral programs, which is the subject of this article. Indeed, BALCA has been very busy recently issuing many decisions, http://bit.ly/elYpsb, in various aspects of labor certification practice, and it is incumbent on all stakeholders to keep up with them to avoid the pitfalls resulting in the denial of the application.

As a background, an employer has to conduct a good faith recruitment of the labor market in order to obtain labor certification for a foreign national employee. Obtaining labor certification is often the first step when an employer wishes to sponsor a foreign national employee for permanent residence. An employee referral program is one of the recommended recruitment steps under 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(4)(ii)(G) that an employer may undertake to establish that it made a bona fide effort to recruit qualified US workers.

Previously, employers had been allowed to utilize their existing employee referral program and to document its use by submitting a description of the program. In response to audits, the DOL had previously accepted photocopies of pages from employees’ handbooks describing the ongoing program. This clearly complied with 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(4)(ii)(G), which states, “The use of an employee referral program with incentives can be documented by providing dated copies of employer notices or memoranda advertising the program and specifying the incentives offered.” At the stakeholders teleconference, the DOL indicated for the first time that it would henceforth require more from employers who utilize the employee referral program in fulfillment of one of the three additional forms of recruitment required for professional positions under the current labor certification process known as PERM. In August 2010, the DOL published PERM FAQ 11 (available at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Faqs_Round_11_08032010.pdf) wherein its new requirements were clearly imposed.

Although 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(1)(ii)(G) does not so require, PERM FAQ 11 set forth that the DOL now requires the employer to document its use of an employee referral program by providing dated copies of its notices or memoranda advertising the program and specifying the incentives offered and document that employees were made aware that they could refer applicants to the specific position sponsored under the PERM labor certification application. For example, employees may be notified via the employer’s internal website. But the DOL specifically, without explanation, excluded the Notice of Filing provided to satisfy 20 C.F.R. §656.10(d) as being sufficient for this purpose. In Clearstream Banking, S.A., 2009-PER-15 (Mar. 30, 2010), BALCA established that an ongoing intranet posting is acceptable to communicate the program provided it could be established that there was an employee referral program with incentives.

Throughout 2010, there continued to be various anecdotal reports of DOL audits focused on the use of the employee referral program. Now, two recent BALCA cases have shed some additional light on the use of employee referral programs.

In Matter of Sanmina-Sci Corporation, 2010-PER-00697, (Jan. 19. 2011), the DOL Certifying Officer (CO) found that the employer failed to provide adequate documentation of its employee referral program with incentives. The employer had provided the DOL with a flyer titled “Employee Referral Program” dated July 10, 2000 announcing the incentives and an Employee Referral Program Form dated “Rev. 10/31/03.” The CO cited 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(1)(ii) in support of the finding that these dates did not fall within the recruitment period of 30 to 180 days prior to the filing of the labor certification. The employer argued, in its request for review and appellate brief to BALCA, that it provided adequate documentation under the standard set forth for an employee referral program in 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(4)(ii)(G). The employer had clearly specified the incentives of the employee referral program, the dates of the program and the fact that the program was in effect as of the date of the recruitment report. The employer argued that the facts of its case were similar to Clearstream Banking, S.A., where BALCA stated, “…a generic employee referral program with incentives, the description of which is available to employees may be sufficient to be a step under section 656.17(e)(1)(ii)(G), even if the particular job for which labor certification is being sought is not individually promoted under the program.” The employer pointed out that although the regulations do not require that the PERM position be specifically promoted under the employee referral program, its advertisement of the job on its career web page was sufficient to make employees aware of the opening.

First, BALCA rejected the CO’s argument that the employee referral program was dated outside the recruitment period of 30 to 180 days prior to filing the PERM application. BALCA pointed out that 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(1)(ii)(G) only requires dates establishing that the program was in existence at the time of the recruitment for the PERM position and it cannot be reasonably interpreted to require that the dates on the program fall within the specified periods for other forms of recruitment, such as Sunday newspaper advertisements or a job order on the DOL’s own job bank website. Then, BALCA held that in order for an employer to adequately demonstrate its compliance with 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(1)(ii)(G), it must document that (1) its employee referral program offers incentives to employees for referral; (2) the program was in effect during the PERM recruitment period; and (3) the employees were on notice of the job opening.

BALCA soon spoke again on the subject of the employee referral program and held, in Matter of AQR Capital, 2010-PER-00323 (Jan. 26, 2011), that the employer had adequately provided evidence in support of each of the three elements set forth in Matter of Sanmina-Sci Corporation. The employer’s PERM application indicated that it utilized its employee referral program as one of the three additional recruitment steps to advertise for the professional PERM position. The PERM application indicated that the employer advertised with the employee referral program from July 10, 2007 to August 10, 2007. Upon audit, the employer documented its use of an employee referral program by submitting an undated notice of its program which described the incentives offered. The employer’s recruitment report also indicated that 45 (out of a total of 49) applicants for the PERM position had learned about the position through the employee referral program. The CO denied on the ground that the employer did not submit dated copies of the program.

BALCA reiterated that the dated copies referred to in 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(1)(ii)(G) are solely for the purpose of establishing that the employee referral program existed at the time of recruitment for the PERM position and not to prove that the dates on the program fell within the same specified recruitment period applicable to other forms of recruitment. BALCA held that (1) the employer submitted a copy of its employee referral program that specified incentives offered; (2) although the program was not dated, the employer’s audit response contained sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of the program during the recruitment period; and (3) that the employer’s employees were on notice of the particular job opening. In light of the fact that more than 90% of the applicants for the PERM position learned about it through the employee referral program, BALCA determined it would be ludicrous to question the program’s existence and effectiveness.

BALCA is well aware that, with the exception of requiring dated copies of the employee referral program, it has basically adopted the requirements set forth in PERM FAQ 11, despite the DOL’s possible violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), P.L. 79-404, which prohibits the imposition of new requirements without providing an opportunity for notice and comment. In Matter of Sanmina-Sci Corporation, BALCA specifically addressed this in a footnote but stated that the CO could not be assured that the recruitment step had any connection to an employer’s specific efforts to fill the PERM position and therefore it is implicitly required that the employer provide documentation to show that the employee referral program was in effect during the recruitment period and that employees were aware of the opening.

In light of these two recent cases, my previous advice on this issue still stands. Employers may want to consider adding an “available positions” section at the end of the employee referral program description, including a copy of the specific PERM ad(s) and posting the program in a conspicuous location on the business premises for a specific number of days (and publishing via employer’s intranet, if any) as they do with the Notice of Filing required under 20 C.F.R. §656.10(d). Interestingly, BALCA, in Matter of Sanmina-Sci Corporation, also expressed some bafflement over the fact that the employer’s Notice of Filing cannot be used to prove that employees were made aware of the specific PERM position. However, in that case, since the employer also had an internal web posting, BALCA declined to address the question of whether the Notice of Filing, standing alone, could serve as proof that employees were made aware of the position for which the PERM application was filed.

Posting the employee referral program with an “available positions” section will establish both that the program was in effect during the PERM recruitment period and that the employees were on notice of the job opening. It would also be a good idea to execute a brief memorandum confirming the existence of the employee referral program, describing how the company’s employees were made aware that they could refer applicants to the specific PERM position and listing how many applications, if any, were received. In this manner, employers can be certain that they have done enough to survive an audit. Well, at least until the next rule change.