In
the Matter of: GUY
SANTIGLIA, Compla
ina
nt
vs.
SUN
MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Respondent.
US
Department of La
b
or, Office
of Administrative Law Judges
Re
lea
sed:
Fe
b
ruary
19, 2003
A
disgruntled fo
rm
er employee, Guy Santiglia,
of Sun Microsystems succeeded in convincing a US Department of La
b
or Administrative Law Judge
that the company v
iola
ted La
b
or Condition Application
rules. But the victory was a hollow one since the judge in the case found that
the v
iola
tions were minor and
unintentional and did not justify a fine. The company was only ordered to modify
its LCA posting policies.
The
company was accused of a num
b
er of v
iola
tions,
b
ut only one v
iola
tion was found. The judge
found that Sun failed to post two copies of the LCAs at the specific work site
where the H-1B workers would
b
e working. The company
posted one copy at its headquarters and another at the work site. The company
was ordered to always post two copies of the LCA at the work site.
Other
claims against Sun were denied.
Employers
are required to maintain a pu
b
lic access file at its
principal place o f
b
usiness. The fo
rm
er employee claimed that Sun
failed to m
ak
e the LCA records availa
b
le at the work site in
Santa Clara
,
California
. Sun maintained the records
at its corporate headquarters in
Newark
,
California
. The Administrative Judge
found in this case that Sun acted properly in maintaining the records in
Newark
.
Santiglia
also argued that it was denied reasona
b
le access to the files of
Sun. He was required to m
ak
e an appointment to see the
files and was not pe
rm
itted to see all of the
b
oxes of files at one time.
He was also requested to sign a log
b
ook
b
efore
b
eing given access to the
files. The judge in this case found that none of these restrictions denied
Santiglia access to the files.
Santiglia
complained that he was not allowed to photocopy or photograph the files. He was
pe
rm
itted to t
ak
e personal notes. The judge
also found that this was not a v
iola
tion of the LCA rules. The
rules merely state that the files must
b
e made availa
b
le for pu
b
lic exam
ina
tion.
Santiglia
complained that he was not provided access to the specific wages paid to
specific workers. The judge found that while Sun must include documentation a
b
out the wage rate to
b
e paid the H-1B worker in
the pu
b
lic access file and must
maintain specific payroll records and individual wage data, payroll records and
wage data are not considered part of the pu
b
lic record and are only
provided to the Department of La
b
or upon request.
Santiglia
alleged that two H-1B workers were not
b
eing paid the prevailing
wage. But the judge rejected the claim stating that Santiglia did not prove that
the workers were, in fact, on H-1B visas.
Santiglia
alleged that some of Sun's LCAs were invalid
b
ecause the signatures on the
documents were not the person stated. Instead, they were her assistant. The
judge, however, found that this was pe
rm
issi
b
le since the signature was
authorized
b
y Sun and the LCAs were
personally reviewed
b
y the person on whose
b
ehalf the document was
signed.
Santiglia also complained that Sun made misrepresentations since it hired H-1B
workers when other companies were laying off workers en masse. However,
b
ecause Sun is not an H-1B
dependent employer, it was, according to the judge, under no o
b
ligation to show that
workers were not displaced.
F
ina
lly, Santiglia argued that
two positions covered in the LCAs - IR System Technologist 1 and IR System
Technology 2 d
o n
ot meet the requirements for
"specialty occupations." But the judge reminded Santiglia that the
dete
rm
ina
tion of whether a jo
b
is a specialty occupation
is one left to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and not the Department
of La
b
or.
Santiglia
was represented in the case
b
y
Michael
Hethmon, a staff lawyer for
FAIR, an anti-immigrant organization. Sun was represented
b
y
Roxana Bacon
, a lawyer in
Phoenix
,
Ari
zona
.
