695 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1982), 81-7836, Bradford v. Donovan
|Citation:||695 F.2d 409|
|Party Name:||In re the Petition of Thomas J. BRADFORD, Roger D. Cunningham, Gary M. Cooper, Dale Lloyd Ferguson, Curtis A. Petersteiner, Barbara D. Stewart, Mark Richard Telegin, Roger P. Williams, III, and Gary A. Kittelson, Petitioners, v. Honorable Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||December 28, 1982|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 1982.
William F. Ferroggiaro, Jr., Eureka, Cal., for petitioners.
Margrit Vanderryn, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Secretary of Labor.
Before FLETCHER and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and EAST, [*] Senior District Judge.
EAST, Senior District Judge:
The petitioners, displaced employees of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, applied for benefits under Title II of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-250, Secs. 201-213, 92 Stat. 163, 172-82. Title II provides unemployment and severance pay for forest product workers displaced by expansion of the Redwood National Park. 1 The Secretary of Labor denied petitioners benefits under the Act because he found they were not employees of an "affected employer" within the meaning of Section 201(9) of Title II, 92 Stat. 173.
We note jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. Sec. 79l(h) and deny the petition for review.
The nine petitioners are displaced employees of Northwestern Pacific Railroad, a division of Southern Pacific Railroad. Northwestern operates primarily in Northern California and over 98% of its business consists of shipping carloads of wood products, mostly finished lumber, out of Northern California to national markets. Northwestern has suffered a substantial decline in business since the expansion of the Redwood National Park. This decline is, in part, attributable to the expansion.
In 1979, petitioners applied for benefits under Title II. The California Employment Development Department (EDD), the agency designated to process Title II claims, denied petitioners' applications because it found that they did not work for an "affected employer" as defined in Section 201(6) of Title II.
The petitioners and the EDD exhausted their respective administrative remedies and appealed to the Secretary.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP