726 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1984), 82-7247, Tuey v. Donovan
|Docket Nº:||82-7247, 82-7482.|
|Citation:||726 F.2d 537|
|Party Name:||Danny W. TUEY, and Leslie A. Dehaven, Petitioners, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, Respondent. Donald L. SCOTT, William G. Gillespie, Archie T. Lawrence, Petitioners, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||February 22, 1984|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 1983.
John William Cumming, Eureka, Cal., David S. Krueger, Stokes, Steeves, Warren, Jensen & Cissna, Arcata, Cal., for petitioners.
Edwin W. Tyler, Sec. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Petition to Review a Decision of the Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Before KENNEDY, REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN, [*] District Judge.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Petitioners seek review of decisions by the Assistant Secretary of Labor denying them benefits that are available to displaced lumber industry workers under Title II of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act (Redwood Act), Pub.L. No. 95-250, 92 Stat. 163 (1978). 1 We hold that the Assistant Secretary acted unreasonably in interpreting the relevant statutory language so as to deny petitioners those benefits. In
doing so, we reject his conclusion that divisions of an "affected contract employer" may be excluded from coverage of the Act if the divisions are not within or geographically near the park expansion area.
Petitioners were employed as truckdrivers by Redwood Construction Company, a contract trucking firm. After being laid off from their employment, petitioners applied for benefits under Title II of the Redwood Act. Title II authorizes certain benefit payments to persons who were employed by an "affected employer" and who were "adversely affected" by the Redwood National Park expansion. See Redwood Act Sec. 201(11). One type of "affected employer" is an "affected contract employer," as defined in section 201(9) of the Redwood Act.
An Administrative Law Judge decided that petitioners Tuey and DeHaven were eligible for weekly layoff benefits. The Assistant Secretary reversed that decision. Similarly, another Administrative Law Judge determined that petitioners Scott, Gillespie, and Lawrence were eligible for those benefits. He also was reversed by the Assistant Secretary. 2 In both decisions, the Assistant Secretary denied benefits to the petitioners on the ground that they were employed by divisions of an "affected contract employer" that were not within or geographically near the park expansion area. We review his actions under 16 U.S.C. Sec. 79l (h) (1982).
Section 201(6) provides for three types of "affected employers": affected woods employers, affected mill employers, and affected contract employers. Section 201(9) defines an affected contract employer as "an affected employer providing services pursuant to contract with an affected woods employer, if at least 15 per centum of said employer's employee-hours worked during calendar year 1977 were within or directly related to the expansion area pursuant to such contract or contracts." 3
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP