Department labor standards enforcement manual

Please include the specific manual section or opinion letter number and explain your specific concerns. All comments will be read and considered, but no responses to questions or specific advice will be provided. Labor Commissioner's Office.

Quick Links. Full Version. General Operational Procedures. Statement of Purpose. This manual is not intended to: be an interpretation of law or regulation, address agency policy on issues or potential violations, serve as guidance for persons outside the Department of Labor, give any person, including the subject of an EBSA investigation or enforcement action, a right to rely on any policy or procedure contained in the manual, or create any other substantive or procedural rights.

Enforcement Manual Maintenance. Process The Enforcement Manual review process is as follows: The Committee reviews and drafts proposed changes to the Enforcement Manual that impact the investigative process, as needed, but not less than every two years. The Committee makes recommendations for any changes or updates to the Enforcement Manual to the Director of Enforcement.

Implementation Changes to the Enforcement Manual are made electronically. Beginning January 1, , all talent agencies operating in California must provide their artists with educational materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, reporting resources, nutrition and eating disorders. If you believe your employer has paid those wages to the Labor Commissioner on your behalf, please complete this form and mail to the address below or take it to any local office of the Labor Commissioner.

Please complete and submit a separate form for every employer who you think may have paid your wages to the Labor Commissioner. Need to make a payment? Labor Commissioner's Office Labor Commissioner's Office The mission of the California Labor Commissioner's Office is to ensure a just day's pay in every workplace in the State and to promote economic justice through robust enforcement of labor laws.

Supreme Court decisions in Malloy v. Hogan , U. See also Wirtz v. The Supreme Court recently affirmed a decision of a United States district court dismissing an indictment of an employer for making unlawful payments to a union representative in violation of section of the Taft-Hartley Act. The court held that the employer was immune because the matters under investigation at the time he was subpoenaed and his oral testimony before the Grand Jury pertained to violations of LMRDA.

United States v. Weber , F. Fisher , U. In United States v. Norton , F. They moved for dismissal of the indictment, arguing that the Department of Justice in its investigation was acting as agent for the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the two Departments and that, therefore, they were entitled to immunity under section b of the LMRDA and 15 U.

The court distinguished the Norton case from United States v. See also United States v. Zirpolo , F. Labor Department compliance officers had interviewed two potential defendants before the case was turned over to the Department of Justice and before a grand jury was impanelled. The grand jury indictment alleged violation of the Taft-Hartley and Hobbs Acts. The court ruled that since no LMRDA offenses under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor were charged, and since no defendant had testified or produced evidence in response to a subpoena issued by or on behalf of the Secretary of Labor, the immunity provided by section b of the Act did not apply.

Revised: Dec. A subpoena duces tecum directing a corporation to appear before an Area Director of BLMR now OLMS with certain records of the corporation was upheld by the District Court in Georgia over the objection of the corporation that the records in question did not in fact exist.

The court held that the question of the existence of the subpoenaed records was one to be determined by the Area Director before whom the corporation officers were directed to appear by the subpoena and was, therefore, not properly before the court. Sewell Manufacturing Co. A subpoena duces tecum, issued by the Secretary of Labor under section , was held not to be too broad where a union was required to produce records used in making reports filed under LMRDA.

It was held not to be unreasonable to compel production of the records which the Act requires the union to keep for five years for the purpose of verification of reports submitted under the Act. Goldberg F. In order to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of functions among Government agencies, the Secretary may make such arrangements or agreements for cooperation or mutual assistance in the performance of his functions under this Act and the functions of any such agency as he may find to be practicable and consistent with law.

The Secretary may utilize the facilities or services of any department, agency, or establishment of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, including the services of any of its employees, with the lawful consent of such department, agency, or establishment; and each department, agency, or establishment of the United States is authorized and directed to cooperate with the Secretary and, to the extent permitted by law, to provide such information and facilities as he may request for his assistance in the performance of his functions under this Act.

The Attorney General or his representative shall receive from the Secretary for appropriate action such evidence developed in the performance of his functions under this Act as may be found to warrant consideration for criminal prosecution under the provisions of this Act or other Federal law.

Whereas, that Act, in section , imposes upon the Secretary of Labor the responsibility for conducting investigations of persons who have violated, or are about to violate, any provision of the Act except Title I, or amendments made by this Act to other statutes ; and. Whereas, that Act, in section , provides that the Secretary of Labor may make interagency agreements to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of functions among Government agencies and ensure cooperation and mutual assistance in the performance of functions under the Act; and.

Whereas, it is desirable and essential that areas of responsibility and procedures in connection with any investigations, prosecutions of offenses and civil enforcement actions arising under the Act should be the subject of formal agreement between the Departments;. It is hereby agreed and understood between the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor as follows:. Criminal Prosecutions.

All cases involving violation of the criminal provisions of the Act will be prosecuted by the Department of Justice.