Enforcement of SSA No-Match Letters - Not an Employer Violation
Posted Jun 06, 2008
©MurthyDotCom
A decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently found no violation of U.S. labor laws where an employer suddenly began enforcing no-match letters issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA). When the names of the employees do not match the social security numbers they gave to their employers, the employers receive no-match letters from the SSA as notification.
©MurthyDotCom
Employer Enforces No-Match Letters after Six Years of Inaction
©MurthyDotCom
In the case of Aramark Educational Services, Inc. and UNITE HERE Local 26, a labor union filed a complaint alleging that Aramark failed to negotiate its change of policy regarding enforcement of SSA no-match letters. From at least November 2000 until September 2006, Aramark had largely ignored SSA notifications of mismatched or unmatched social security numbers provided by its employees. A full discussion of the facts of this case, of which Murthy Law Firm was not a part, can be found online in the published decision (PDF 107KB).
©MurthyDotCom
Background of SSA No-Match Letters
©MurthyDotCom
The SSA maintains earnings information on U.S. workers for the purpose of determining eligibility for Social Security benefits. Employers are required to submit employee wage information to SSA. Since 1994, the SSA has attempted to correct mismatched social security number records by sending employers no-match letters requesting corrected information. Long-time readers of MurthyDotCom and the MurthyBulletin may remember our coverage of the current controversy regarding no-match letters in our August 17, 2007 article, Liability for Employers Who Receive No-Match Letters.
©MurthyDotCom
Existing Legal Duties for Employers
©MurthyDotCom
In the decision in the Aramark case, the ALJ noted that, despite the fact that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s no-match program was halted by a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the employer had legal obligations to ensure the legality of its workforce. The ALJ noted that Internal Revenue Service regulations, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and U.S. Supreme Court precedents in the area of labor law all impose duties and penalties on employers, requiring that they exercise diligence in ensuring that their employees are work-authorized.
©MurthyDotCom
ALJ Finds No Violation in New (or Renewed) Enforcement
©MurthyDotCom
Despite the fact that, for six years, Aramark did not actively enforce its own policies relating to employees whose social security numbers did not match SSA records, the ALJ found no violation of U.S. labor law in its post-2006 actions. The ALJ noted that the company was acting in compliance with U.S. labor and immigration laws and that, in fact, it had entered into discussions with the appropriate representatives from the international union. The ALJ found that these discussions qualified as negotiations and that they reached an impasse, thereby meeting the requirements of U.S. labor law.