Employer fined for delayed filing of renewal application

By
|
Posted on Oct 08 2004
Share

The Department of Labor imposed a $250 fine against an employer who filed a work permit application two months late.

Hearing officer Jerry Cody ordered the sanction, as he reversed the denial of the labor permit filed by employer Tina Flores for nonresident worker Melinda M. Edodoleon.

In an Oct. 4 administrative order, Cody noted that Edodoleon’s permit to work as a houseworker for Flores expired on Jan. 18, 2004. The employer however filed a renewal application for Edodoleon on March 17, or two months late.

On May 24, the Labor Department denied the application on the grounds that it was untimely filed. The employer and the worker appealed the denial.

At the hearing, the employer’s husband—Erwin Flores—testified that he took the renewal application from his wife and planned to file the application, but then completely forgot to file it. By the time he remembered and filed the application, it was two months overdue.

Mr. Flores accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for the situation.

Cody noted that Labor regulations allow an employer to pay a “late fee” of $5 per day for the first 30 days that an application is tardy. In this case, however, the application was filed two months late “through no fault of the worker and due to the admitted carelessness of the employer.”

“Based on the evidence, I find that the appropriate remedy is to assess this employer a monetary sanction of $250 rather than to completely deny the application. Such a sanction is similar to other sanctions previously issued to employers in comparable cases,” the hearing officer said.

Cody allowed the employer to pay the sanction in two installments of $125 each, due on Oct. 30 and Nov. 30, respectively. (Agnes E. Donato)

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.