AFL-CIO v. Brock, Civ. A. No. 87-1683.

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Citation668 F. Supp. 31
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 87-1683.
PartiesAFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William BROCK, et al., Defendants.
Decision Date05 August 1987

668 F. Supp. 31

AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
William BROCK, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 87-1683.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

August 5, 1987.


668 F. Supp. 32

Shelley Davis, Edward J. Tuddenham, Migrant Legal Action Program, David M. Silverman, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., Garry G. Geffert, West Virginia Legal Services Plan, Inc., Martinsburg, W.Va., for plaintiffs.

Drake Cutini, Dept. of Justice, Harry L. Sheinfeld, Robert J. Lesnick, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for defendants.

Carl W. Vogt, Warren Belmar, John M. Simpson, Robert A. Burgoyne, Fulbright & Jaworski, Washington, D.C. intervenor for Nat. Council of Agr. Employers, et al.

MEMORANDUM

SPORKIN, District Judge.

By this action plaintiffs challenge regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Labor ("DOL" or "the Department") concerning the employment of nonimmigrant alien workers in the United States. The Secretary of Labor regulates the wages and working conditions of these alien laborers. Thus, before an employer can hire alien workers, it must agree to comply with DOL regulations and it must receive the appropriate "certification" from the Department of Labor. However, the Secretary of Labor is prohibited by law from certifying the importation of nonimmigrant alien workers unless "the employment of the alien ... will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed." 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(1)(B). Historically, the Secretary fulfilled this mandate by establishing an "adverse effect wage rate" ("AEWR") in areas where wages were depressed by the importation of aliens. The AEWR was set above the prevailing wage rate in the area and employers were required to pay the higher rate.1

Purportedly responding to the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), Pub.L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3411, (1987), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the Secretary promulgated new AEWR regulations effective June 1, 1987, which essentially reduce the AEWR to prevailing wage rates by setting it equal to the "annual weighted average hourly wage rate ..." 20 C.F.R. § 655.107, 52 Fed.Reg. 20521, (June 1, 1987).

Plaintiffs allege that these regulations establishing a new methodology for setting the AEWR are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, and they seek to enjoin their implementation. Because I find that the regulations do not comply with the law requiring that the Secretary ensure "employment of the alien ... will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly situated," 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(1)(B),

668 F. Supp. 33
I grant the plaintiffs' motion and enjoin the implementation of the regulations.2

I. BACKGROUND

A. Authority

Before IRCA, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ("INA"), Pub.L. No. 414, 66 Stat. 166, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the decision to grant or deny a nonimmigration visa petition was solely within the authority of the Attorney General, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii), § 1184 (1986), who in turn delegated the authority to the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(3). It was INS's policy, however, as manifested in regulations implementing the Act, to require that the Department of Labor advise INS with respect to, among others, the following two issues:

(a) Whether there are a sufficient number of able, willing, and qualified U.S. workers available to do the work proposed to be done by the alien; and
(b) Whether the employment of the alien will adversely effect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 655 (January 16, 1981) implementing 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(3)(i). Thus, under the old regulations, INS demanded that an employer who wanted to import aliens must first seek certification on these two issues from the Department of Labor.

IRCA changed the Department of Labor's AEWR authority by codifying what had been a regulatory mandate.3 Now, instead of acting in an advisory capacity to the INS, the Department of Labor has specific authority to certify alien workers granted by the statute itself. 8 U.S.C. § 1186. The words of the new statute closely parallel what had been the regulatory language developed by INS under the old law. Thus, the law (itself) now requires that before the Attorney General approve a petition for importation of alien workers, the employer desiring to import aliens must seek certification from the Secretary of Labor that:

(A) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services involved in the petition, and
(B) the employment of the alien in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.
668 F. Supp. 34

8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(1).4

B. Adverse Effect Wage Rate

As the Department worked to fulfill its regulatory mandate—that is, to ensure that importation of alien workers would not adversely effect wages of American workers—it "found for many years that the presence of alien workers in agriculture depressed the wages of similarly employed U.S. workers." 52 Fed.Reg. 20502 (June 1, 1987).5 Fearing that widespread wage deflation might result from mass importation of alien workers, the Department protected the wages of U.S. workers through the promulgation of an enhanced minimum wage known as the "adverse effect wage rate." Employers seeking certification from the Department to import alien workers had to agree to pay this enhanced wage both to the American workers they might hire and to the alien worker.

Thus the AEWR became the specific mechanism by which the Department fulfilled its mandate to protect U.S. workers. Indeed, in the regulations at issue here, the Department describes the purpose of the AEWR in the exact language of the statutory provision requiring it to protect U.S. workers. Compare 52 Fed.Reg. 20502 ("The purpose of the AEWR is to ensure that the wages of similarly employed U.S. workers will not be adversely affected by the importation of alien workers.") with 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(1) (the Department must certify that "employment of the alien ... will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.").

Though the concept of an AEWR dates back as far as the early 1950s, 52 Fed.Reg. 20503 (June 1, 1987), DOL first established AEWRs for 28 states in 1964.6 24 Fed. Reg. 19101 (1964), Pl.Ex. 5. "The formula for determining these rates used the 1950 Census of Agriculture average hourly wage rate for each State adjusted by the 1950-1963 trend in manufacturing wages ... These changes had the effect of generally raising the AEWR for each State above the average agricultural wage ..." DOL Assessment, Appendix to Pl.Ex. 6 at 2. Beginning in 1968, the Department began calculating AEWRs by using the 1964 AEWR as a base and by increasing it annually "by the same percentage change in the Statewide annual average wage rates for field and livestock workers, as surveyed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)." 52 Fed.Reg. 20503 (June 1, 1987).7 This traditional methodology produced AEWRs which were approximately 20% above the average farm wage in the states for which they were published. See Draft H-2A Regulations (March 13, 1987) ("Draft Regulations"), Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 at 31-32.8

668 F. Supp. 35

Thus, as recently as March 13, 1987, in the draft regulations which preceded those at issue in this case, the Department proposed to determine AEWRs by simply "adding a 20% differential to the USDA data," Id. at 28, meaning that "the AEWR for covered employment in each State would be 20% above the previous year's annual average hourly wage rates for field and livestock workers (combined) for the USDA wage survey region in which the State is located." Id. The rationale for the "20 percent `differential'" as explained in the March 13 draft and as understood for decades prior to that, was twofold. Id. at 31. First, the bonus compensated for past adverse effects of the importation of foreign workers, id., which, although difficult to measure, was "widely recognized to have occurred." Id. Second, "in addition to compensating for past adverse effect, a differential also compensates for a lag in the availability of USDA average hourly wage data, on the assumption that wage rates generally tend to go upward over time." Id.

Despite these findings, when the interim final rule was issued in the June 1, 1987 Federal Register, there was absolutely no mention of a 20% differential. The language quoted in the last paragraph acknowledging that the traditional AEWR methodology tended to yield AEWRs 20% above average wages was absent from the final regulations; and instead of proposing to add a 20% differential to the USDA figures, the Department simply set the AEWR at the USDA average wage figure without any upward adjustment. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.107, 52 Fed.Reg. 20521 (June 1, 1987) (AEWR shall be "equal to the annual weighted average hourly wage rate ... as published annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture ..."). Additionally, the Department did not adopt any replacement measures to ensure that the importation of aliens would not adversely affect U.S. workers. Thus, under the new regulations, to obtain a certification, a grower need only agree to pay the higher of the average wage (which has been designated the AEWR), the prevailing wage, or the federal or state minimum wage. 20 C.F.R. § 102(b)(9)(i), 52 Fed.Reg. 20515.

II. REVIEW

My review of the regulations in question is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., which requires the plaintiffs to show that the agency's action is "arbitrary, capricious, an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations v. Brock, Nos. 87-5258--87-5260
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • December 22, 1987
    ...hence violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court invalidated the new AEWR regulations, see AFL-CIO v. Brock, 668 F.Supp. 31 (D.D.C.1987), J.A. at 664, and the Department appeals from that II. ANALYSIS Succinctly stated, the crux of the controversy is as follows:......
  • AFL-CIO v. McLaughlin, Civ. A. No. 87-1683.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 20, 1988
    ...in a courtroom to be designated on that date. --------Notes: 1 Plaintiffs' piece rate claim was initially addressed in AFL-CIO v. Brock, 668 F.Supp. 31, 33 n. 2 (D.D.C.1987). At that time, I enjoined DOL from implementing its new piece rate regulation. Id. at 40 n. 11. Subsequently, the Cou......
  • AFL-CIO v. McLaughlin, Civ. A. No. 87-1683.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 20, 1988
    ...District Judge. This is another chapter in a long saga of litigation. See AFL-CIO v. Brock, 835 F.2d 912 (D.C.Cir.1987), remanding 668 F.Supp. 31 (D.D.C.). The entire factual and procedural background of this action need not be fully recited here. However, a short review is in I. BACKGROUND......
  • AFL-CIO v. Dole, Civ. A. No. 89-2315-SS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 30, 1990
    ...above the average farm wage as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"). See AFL-CIO v. Brock, 668 F.Supp. 31, 34-35 (D.D.C.), remanded, 835 F.2d 912 (D.C.Cir. 1987). This is the third time that this Court has reviewed the validity of the DOL's AEWR regul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations v. Brock, Nos. 87-5258--87-5260
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • December 22, 1987
    ...hence violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court invalidated the new AEWR regulations, see AFL-CIO v. Brock, 668 F.Supp. 31 (D.D.C.1987), J.A. at 664, and the Department appeals from that II. ANALYSIS Succinctly stated, the crux of the controversy is as follows:......
  • AFL-CIO v. McLaughlin, Civ. A. No. 87-1683.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 20, 1988
    ...in a courtroom to be designated on that date. --------Notes: 1 Plaintiffs' piece rate claim was initially addressed in AFL-CIO v. Brock, 668 F.Supp. 31, 33 n. 2 (D.D.C.1987). At that time, I enjoined DOL from implementing its new piece rate regulation. Id. at 40 n. 11. Subsequently, the Cou......
  • AFL-CIO v. McLaughlin, Civ. A. No. 87-1683.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 20, 1988
    ...District Judge. This is another chapter in a long saga of litigation. See AFL-CIO v. Brock, 835 F.2d 912 (D.C.Cir.1987), remanding 668 F.Supp. 31 (D.D.C.). The entire factual and procedural background of this action need not be fully recited here. However, a short review is in I. BACKGROUND......
  • AFL-CIO v. Dole, Civ. A. No. 89-2315-SS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 30, 1990
    ...above the average farm wage as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"). See AFL-CIO v. Brock, 668 F.Supp. 31, 34-35 (D.D.C.), remanded, 835 F.2d 912 (D.C.Cir. 1987). This is the third time that this Court has reviewed the validity of the DOL's AEWR regul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT