(a) Any interested party may seek reconsideration of a wage determination issued under this part or of a decision of the Administrator regarding application of a wage determination.
(b) Such a request for reconsideration must be in writing, accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's views and any supporting wage data or other pertinent information. Requests must be submitted via email to [email protected]; by mail to Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210; or through other means directed by the Administrator. The Administrator will respond within 30 days of receipt thereof, or will notify the requestor within the 30-day period that additional time is necessary.
(c) If the decision for which reconsideration is sought was made by an authorized representative of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, the interested party seeking reconsideration may request further reconsideration by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. Such a request must be submitted within 30 days from the date the decision is issued; this time may be extended for good cause at the discretion of the Administrator upon a request by the interested party. The procedures in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any such reconsideration requests.
[88 FR 57728, Aug. 23, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 588 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2008).
“1993) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1.8 , 5.6(a)(3), 5.11). Given these administrative remedies, and the absence of an explicit private cause of action, Grochowski concluded that the “plaintiffs[’] efforts to bring their claims as state common-law [contract] claims [were] clearly an…”
Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2008).
“1993) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1.8 , 5.6(a)(3), 5.11). Given these administrative remedies, and the absence of an explicit private cause of action, Grochowski concluded that the “plaintiffsf’] efforts to bring their claims as state common-law [contract] claims [were] clearly an…”
Fort Hood Barbers Ass'n v. Herman, 137 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 1998).
“The Secretary’s regulations provide that “[a]ny interested person may seek reconsideration of a wage determination----” 29 C.F.R. § 1.8 . The request “shall be in writing accompanied by a full statement of the interested person’s views and any supporting wage data or other…”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades' Dep't v. Donovan, 712 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
“at 182 (if there has been no similar construction in county in recent years, “the report shall cover wage conditions in the nearest large city”); 29 C.F.R. § 1.8 (b) (1982) (if no similar construction in area, “wage rate paid on the nearest similar construction may be…”
Cnty. of Santa Clara V.astra USA, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008).
“1993) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1.8 , 5.6(a)(3), 5.11). Given these admin- istrative remedies, and the absence of an explicit private cause of action, Grochowski concluded that the “plaintiffs[’] efforts to bring their claims as state common-law [contract] claims [were] clearly an…”
Cnty. of Santa Clar v. Astra USA, Inc. (9th Cir. 2009).
“1993) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1.8 , 5.6(a)(3), 5.11). Given these admin- 16 This is a different and less demanding inquiry than that used to evalu- ate whether a federal statute preempts a state-law cause of action, see City of Milwaukee, 451 U.”
United States v. Town of Bolton Landing, 946 F. Supp. 162 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
“29 C.F.R. § 1.8 . After a denial of reconsideration, “[a]ny interested person may appeal to the Wage Appeals Board for a review of a wage determination or its application.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.