Opposition Brief — Coloma v. Director

a CEFERINO COLOMA, PETITIONER

; a i v.

ie : i x.

ve. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

: PROGRAMS AND CHEVRON SHIPPING COMPANY

ice

us ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ee TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

- FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

on

5 BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL RESPONDENT

“ae IN OPPOSITION

KENNETH W. STARR

. ee ee ee ee

Ye a Dee ea ee

te ae De A 2

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

* Washington, D.C. 20530

i (202) 514-2217

) ROBERT P. DAvis

: Solicitor of Labor

As ALLEN H. FELDMAN

ay Associate Solicitor

Sreven J. MANDEL

Li Deputy Associate Solicitor

ag ELLEN L. BEARD

+ Attorney

Department of Labor

Washington, D.C. 20210

.% rae

QUESTION PRESENTED

Petitioner suffered work-related injury while em-

ployed as a cook and messman in a “crews’ mess”

located on a wharf. The question presented is

whether the court of appeals was correct in holding

that petitioner did not meet the “status” requirement

for coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Work-

ers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 902(3).

(1)

4

a ad A »

pS aa eee Ee Te es ee Te “ ee ee mers oe a ao - 7 m — 7 is ot Te

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Opinions below ................ OG ER ee 1

a ivaedivehinamncinansinnie 1

ss stiemeecanidiammmnnaniinden 2

a cnepanentabananimnanicatagionse 6

ET EE ee a ea 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Atlantic Container Serv., Inc. v. Coleman, 904

Bo ge | ane eee 11

Browning v. B.F. Diamond Constr. Co., 676 F.2d

547 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.

ES Ble A LE ee ae a 11

Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. Schwalb, 110 S. Ct. 381

he a 4, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11

Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Assocs.,

I i a svesnemnnnsnmansneie 8,9, 12

Dorris v. Director, OWCP, 808 F.2d 1362 (9th

a ncbbnintdinnadahennons 4-5

Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland,

I I iis seiicistnngananesinnnennaninsinnesueis 8

Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414

CE ied anemia 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432

ae a Oe ee 6, 7,9

Odom Constr. Co. v. United States Dep’t of Labor,

622 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied,

I CIID ocitcesinccnccciccctoesecensnscnccsseccnccns 10

P.C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69 (1979)... 7

Sanders v. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding

Co., 841 F.2d 1085 (11th Cir. 1988) ......0022200.. 5, 10

Schwalb v. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 235 Va. 27, 365

I 9°

Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. PLT Engineer-

ing, Inc., 895 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1990) ...00000.... 11

(II)

IV

Cases—Continued : Page

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Gilmore, 528 F.2d 957 (9th

Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 868 (1976).... 3-4,8

Statutes:

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation

Act, 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.:

fm gk Ee | Sn eennennO 2, 3, 4, 5

§ 2(3), 33 U.S.C. 902(3) (1982) a 6

§ 3(a), 33 U.S.C. 903 (a) ....................-....- mise 2, 6

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compen-

sation Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No.

92-576, §2(a), 86 Stat. 1261 ........:.....1 2... 2-3

Miscellaneous:

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Em-

ployment Standards Admin., U.S. Dep’t of

Labor, LHWCA Program Memorandum No. 58,

Guidelines for Determination of Coverage of

Claims under Amended Longshoremen’s Act:

Fe : re Cea eee ne 8

ae

Iu the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1990

No. 89-1894

CEFERINO COLOMA, PETITIONER

Vv.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS AND CHEVRON SHIPPING COMPANY

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL RESPONDENT

IN OPPOSITION

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App.

A1-A14) is reported at 897 F.2d 394. The order of

the Benefits Review Board denying reconsideration

(Pet. App. A15-A17) is reported at 21 Ben. Rev. Bd.

Serv. (MB) 318; the Board’s original decision and

order (Pet. App. A18-A23) is reported at 21 Ben.

Rev. Bd. Serv. (MB) 200. The decision of the ad-

ministrative law judge (Pet. App. A25-A30) is re-

ported at 18 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. (MB) 434 (ALJ).

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the court of appeals was entered

on February 23, 1990. The petition for a writ of

(1)

2

certiorari was filed on April 25, 1990. The jurisdic-

tion of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

1254(1).

STATEMENT

1. Petitioner was employed by respondent Chev-

ron Shipping Company as a messman and cook. Pet.

App. A3. From 1977 to 1982, he worked at the “Sea-

gull Inn,” the Chevron “crews’ mess” on the Rich-

mond Longwharf near San Francisco. The “primary

function” of the Inn “was to provide meals to the

officers and seamen of visiting Chevron tankers while

their shipboard stewards took shore leave.”” Pet. App.

A4; Pet. 5. In 1982, Chevron closed the Inn and

began feeding its crew members either at a cafeteria

about a mile away or by using messmen who re-

mained aboard the tankers. Pet. App. A5, A13.

About that time, petitioner was diagnosed as suffer-

ing from an occupational disease, benign keratoma

with lichenoid dermatitis on both hands, caused by

repeated exposure to harsh cleansing agents in the

course of his employment with Chevron. Pet. App.

A3-A4, The parties stipulated that the injury arose

on a “maritime situs” as defined by the Longshore

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA),

33 U.S.C. 903(a), and resulted in permanent dis-

ability. Pet. App. A4. The only dispute is whether

petitioner’s work also met the Act’s “status” test for

coverage, 7.e., whether it constituted “maritime em-

ployment” as defined in 33 U.S.C. 902(3).'

1 Since petitioner’s injury arose on July 28, 1982, his claim

is governed by the 1972 version of the LHWCA, rather than

the Act as amended in 1984. See Pet. App. A4 n.1. The 1972

version of Section 2(3), Longshoremen’s and Harbor Work-

3

2. After a hearing, an administrative law judge

denied benefits on the ground that petitioner was not

engaged in “maritime employment.” Pet. App. A25-

A380. The ALJ found that petitioner’s tasks of

cleaning tables, washing dishes, and cooking were

neither “inherently maritime” nor “significantly dif-

ferent” from the tasks performed at any land-based

restaurant. Pet. App. A29. Relying on Herb’s Weld-

ing, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414 (1985), he further

found that petitioner’s employment did not involve

“any aspect of the process of loading, unloading, re-

pairing or building vessels” and had “no connection

with loading or unloading of ships, moving cargo be-

tween ships and land transportation, or ships [sic]

construction or repair.” Pet. App. A30.

3. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. Pet. App.

A18-A23. It noted that while maritime employment

is not limited to the occupations specifically listed in

Section 2(3) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 902(3), some

connection with the loading or construction of ships

is required under this Court’s interpretation of Sec-

tion 2(3) in Herb’s Welding. The Board held that

petitioner’s work as a cook had no such connection.

Pet. App. A21-A22. The Board then applied an

earlier test employed by the Ninth Circuit in Weyer-

haeuser Co. v. Gilmore, 528 F.2d 957, 961 (1975),

ers’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No.

92-576, § 2(a), 86 Stat. 1251, provided that:

The term “employee” means any person engaged in

maritime employment, including any longshoreman or

other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any

harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder,

and shipbreaker, but such term does not include a master

or member of a crew of any vessel, or any person en-

gaged by the master to load or unload or repair any

small vessel under eighteen tons net.

4

cert. denied, 429 U.S. 868 (1976), under which

claimants satisfy the requirement of Section 2(3)

if their work has a “realistically significant rela-

tionship to ‘traditional maritime activity involving

navigation and commerce on navigable waters.’ ”

Pet. App. A21-A22 (citation omitted). Under this

test, the Board found that petitioner’s work was “not

done in furtherance of ‘traditional’ maritime activ-

ity” and thus was not covered employment. Pet.

App. A22.

On reconsideration, the Board rejected petitioner’s

contention that his work was directly linked to load-

ing and unloading because the Seagull Inn served

tanker workers who loaded and unloaded cargo. The

Board ruled instead that “claimant’s work as a mess-

man/cook was so far attenuated from employer's

cargo transfer operations * * * [that] he was not

engaged in maritime employment for purposes of the

Act.” Pet. App. A16.

4. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. Al-

Al4. It determined that this Court definitively stated

the applicable status test in Herb’s Welding and

Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. Schwalb, 110 S. Ct. 381

(1989), as one that dictated coverage for those whose

work involved “the essential elements of loading and

unloading.” Pet. App. A8-A10. The appellate court

noted in addition that this Court has rejected Weyer-

haeuser’s “significant relationship” test by reversing

lower court decisions applying Weyerhaeuser. Pet.

App. A10-A12. The court thus described as “plainly

wrong” petitioner’s assertion that a “long and un-

broken” line of decisions had applied the Weyer-

haeuser test, concluding instead that the “line * * *

was broken following Herb’s Welding,” even in the

circuit that had produced Weyerhaeuser. Pet. App.

All-A12 (citing Dorris v. Director, OWCP, 808

5

F.2d 1362 (9th Cif. 1987)).? Accordingly, the court

below did not h the question whether petitioner

could meet the Weyerhaeuser standard, since to apply

that test “would be to ignore the clear and direct

mandate from the Supreme Court.” Pet. App. A12-

Al3.

The court of appeals.then applied the standard

articulated in Herb’s Welding and Schwalb. Pet.

App. A13-A14. It held that petitioner’s functions as

a messman and cook were not “essential” to Chev-

ron’s loading and unloading of oil tankers, particu-

larly because those operations have continued and

crew members have eaten elsewhere after the Seagull

Inn closed in 1982. Pet. App. A138. The court dis-

tinguished the functions of the employees in this case

from those of the employees in Schwalb, finding that

the covered maintenance and repair workers in

Schwalb were an “integral part of the loading proc-

ess” without which that process “could not continue,”

while “[n]o such dependence exists in this case.”

Pet. App. A13-A14. The court therefore concluded

that petitioner was not engaged in “maritime em-

ployment” under Section 2(3) of the Longshore Act.

2 The court noted that the decision in Sanders v. Alabama

Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co., 841 F.2d 1085 (11th Cir.

1988), is “the lone exception among post-Herb’s Welding

cases tc the general rule that Supreme Court doctrine inter-

preting Section 903(2) replaces circuit doctrine if the two

are inconsistent.” The court added that the Eleventh Cir-

cuit itself has “fluctuated in its interpretation of Section

902(3).” Pet. App. Al2 n.10. As we explain below (pp. 10-11,

infra), the Eleventh Circuit has since made clear that it ap-

plies the status test adopted by this Court.

6

ARGUMENT

The decision of the court of appeals applies settled

legal standards to the particular facts of this case,

and its conclusion does not conflict with any decision

of this Court or of any other court of appeals. Fur-

ther review is therefore unwarranted.

1. As amended in 1972, the LHWCA provides

workers’ compensation benefits to employees of mari-

time employers who meet both “situs” and “status”

requirements. Workers must, first, be injured on a

covered “situs,” defined under the Act as “navigable

waters * * * including any adjoining pier, wharf,

dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or

other adjoining area customarily used by an em-

ployer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building

a vessel.” Section 3(a), 33 U.S.C. 908(a) (1982).

In order to meet the “status” requirement as well,

employees must be “engaged in maritime employ-

ment,” which the Act defines as “including any long-

shoreman or other person engaged in longshoring

operations, and any harbor-worker including a ship

repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker.” Section

2(3), 33 U.S.C. 902(3) (1982); see Northeast

Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 263-

264 (1977).

Petitioner contends (Pet. 9-14) that this Court’s

opinions do not make clear how the “status” require-

ment of Section 2(3) should be interpreted. The

contention is without merit. This Court has stipu-

lated, first, that maritime employment “expressly in-

cludes the specified occupations but obviously is not

limited to those callings.” Schwalb, 110 S. Ct. at 384.

The Court has in turn defined which land-based

workers other than those in the specified occupations

are in fact covered. Recognizing that Congress added

the “status” requirement to avoid automatic coverage

7

of all employees injured on the maritime situs (see,

e.g., Herb’s Welding, 470 U.S. at 423), the Court has

adopted a functional approach that ties construction

of the term “maritime employment” closely to the

roles performed by employees in the occupa*ions upon

which the Act “focuses primarily”—longshoreman,

harborworker, ship repairman, shipbuilder, and ship-

breaker. Northeast Marine Terminal Co., 432 U.S.

at 273. As the Court has stated, “[t]he Amendments

were not meant ‘to cover employees who are not en-

gaged in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a

vessel, just because they are injured in an area ad-

joining navigable waters used for such activity.’ ”

Herb’s Welding, 470 U.S. at 424. Rather, the Act

covers all workers involved in “some portion” of the

“overall process of loading and unloading vessels”

(P.C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69, 82-83

(1979); Northeast Marine Terminal, 432 U.S. at

267), whether the worker is checking and marking

goods, as in Northeast Marine Terminal Co., moving

cargo, as in P. C. Pfeiffer Co., or cleaning or repair-

ing loading equipment, as in Schwalb. Recently this

Court summarized its prior decisions as having

“clearly decided that, aside from the specified occu-

pations [in Section 2(3)], land-based activity occur-

ring within the § 903 situs will be deemed maritime

only if it is an integral or essential part of loading

or unloading a vessel.” Schwalb, 110 S. Ct. at 384;

see also Herb’s Welding, 470 U.S. at 424.°

8’ This Court has yet to entertain a case in which a worker,

while not a “ship repairman, shipbuilder, [or] shipbreaker,”’

has claimed to be a harborworker performing work that is

“an integral or essential part” of ship repair, shipbuilding,

or shipbreaking. That question is not presented here, and

when it is, we assume the Court would apply an “integral or

essential part’ test analogous to that it has decreed appro-

priate for the cases of workers who claim to be aiding the

8

As consistently as this Court has propounded its

functional, “essential part’ test, it has rejected the

results reached by courts applying the less-focused

“significant relationship” standard proposed by peti-

tioner. That standard was adopted by the Ninth

Circuit, interpreting the 1972 Act’s “status” require-

ment in a decision rendered before the first of this

Court’s cases construing that requirement. Lacking

guidance from this Court, the Ninth Circuit an-

nounced that coverage under the LHWCA should be

extended to those claimants whose “own work and

employment” have “a realistically significant rela-

tionship to ‘traditional maritime activity involving

navigation and commerce on navigable waters.’ ”

Weyerhaeuser, 528 F.2d at 961 (quoting Executive

Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249,

272 (1972) ).

On three separate occasions, this Court has re-

versed lower court decisions that applied the “sig-

nificant relationship” standard. Director, OWCP v.

Perini North River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297 (1983);

Herb’s Welding, supra; Schwalb, supra. In two of

these cases, the lower court had denied coverage un-

der the “significant relationship” test, while this

Court extended coverage under the standard that it

applied. Thus in Perini, the Court held covered a

construction worker building a sewage treatment

plant extending over the Hudson River, because his

injury on actual navigable waters would have been

covered before the 1972 amendments. 459 U.S. at

315. In so holding, the Court reversed a Second Cir-

longshoring process. See Herb’s Welding, 470 U.S. at 423-

424; Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Employ-

ment Standards Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Labor, LHWCA Pro-

gram Memorandum No. 58, Guidelines for Determination of

Coverage of Claims Under Amended Longshoremen’s Act

11-12 (Aug. 10, 1977).

f

a Le i ae

9

cuit decision denying coverage because that employ-

ment lacked a “significant relationship to navigation

or to commerce on navigable waters.” 459 U.S. at

301; see also id. at 302 & n.8, 318-319 & n.27, 320

n.29.

Similarly, in Schwalb, the Supreme Court of Vir-

ginia had applied the “significant relationship”

standard to deny coverage to workers involved in the

maintenance and repair of machinery used to transfer

coal from rail cars te ships. Schwalb v. Chesapeake

¢& O. Ry., 235 Va. 27, 30-33, 365 S.E. 2d 742, 744-745

(1988). This Court reversed, declaring itself “quite

sure that employees who are injured while maintain-

ing or repairing equipment essential to the loading

or unloading process are covered by the Act. Such

employees are engaged in activity that is an integral

part of and essential to those overall processes. That

is all that § 902(3) requires.” 110 S. Ct. at 385.*

Finally, in Herb’s Welding, this Court reversed a

Fifth Circuit decision that had used the “significant

relationship” test to extend LHWCA coverage to a

welder injured on a fixed offshore oil drilling plat-

form in Louisiana territorial waters. 470 U.S. at

418-419. The Court noted that “maritime employ-

4In view of the results in Perini and Schwalb, we disagree

with the court of appeals’ statement (Pet. App. A12) that

this Court, in rejecting the “significant relationship” test,

has accepted a “more restrictive standard.” See also Pet.

App. All (arguing that this Court has rejected “more ex-

pansive interpretations of the Act”). This Court held in

Northeast Marine Terminal Co. that the “language of the

1972 Amendments is broad and suggests that we should take

an expansive view of the extended coverage.” 432 U.S. at

268. Indeed, in Schwalb, the error of the Virginia Supreme

Court lay in its overly restrictive view of what constitutes an

“essential” or “integral” part of loading and unloading ships.

10

ment” cannot be read “to eliminate any requirement

of a connection with the loading or construction of

ships.” Jd. at 423-424. In this instance, the Court

held that the claimant’s work as a welder had “noth-

ing to do with the loading or unloading process” and

was not “inherently maritime” in nature. Id. at 425.

It is evident that this Court has never found the

Weyerhaeuser “significant relationship” test to be a

consistent guide in determining the scope of LHWCA

coverage, much less “a coverage beacon that hajs]

shone steadily since 1975,” as petitioner claims (Pet.

8). Instead, in cases involving cargo-handling oper-

ations, the Court has repeatedly applied “an occupa-

tional test focusing on loading and unloading.”

Schwalb, 110 S. Ct. at 385.

In accordance with these pronouncements, the

courts of appeals have adopted the same approach. See

Schwalb, 110 S. Ct. at 384, 385 (noting that federal

courts uniformly disagreed with “significant relation-

ship” approach adopted by Virginia state court and

citing cases). Petitioner’s contention (Pet. 8-9) that

an Eleventh Circuit decision, Sanders v. Alabama Dry

Dock & Shipbuilding Co., 841 F.2d 1085, 1088

(1988), disrupts this uniformity is without merit.

While the court in Sanders referred to an older Fifth

Circuit case that employed the “significant relation-

ship” test (841 F.2d at 1088 (quoting Odom Constr.

Co. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 622 F.2d 110

(1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 966 (1981)), it

ultimately appl.ed a functional approach, concluding

that “Sanders’ responsibilities [as an industrial

relations specialist] significantly related to and di-

rectly furthered ADDSCO’s ongoing shipbuilding and

ship repair operations.” 841 F.2d at 1088. In any

case, the Eleventh Circuit has recently reiterated that

11

the “Schwalb test supersedes any differing standard

previously used by this court,” including the signifi-

cant relationship test articulated in Sanders. See At-

lantic Container Serv., Inc. v. Coleman, 904 F.2d 611,

618 n.5 (1990); see also Browning v. B.F. Diamond

Constr. Co., 676 F.2d 547, 549-550 (11th Cir. 1982)

(relying on “loading and unloading” test), cert. de-

nied, 459 U.S. 1170 (1983).°

2. Petitioner asserts (Pet. 12-14) that this Court

needs to clarify whether workers other than “long-

shoremen, ship repairmen, shipbuilders and _ship-

breakers” are covered by the Act, or whether only

those engaged in “loading, unloading, repairing or

building a vessel” are covered.

Insofar as petitioner’s claim is a restatement of

the contention that this Court has not clearly rejected

the Weyerhaeuser standard (see Pet. 13-14), it is

without merit for the reasons reviewed above. Inso-

far as petitioner’s assertion is that this Court’s opin-

ions provide conflicting information concerning the

scope of the status test, it also fails. This Court has

made clear that “ ‘maritime employment’ is not lim-

ited to the occupations specifically mentioned in § 2

(3).” Herb’s Welding, 470 U.S. at 423; see also

Schwalb, 110 S. Ct. at 384. As we have explained

above, this Court’s decisions also cover those employ-

ees whose work contributes in an integral or essen-

tial way to the functions performed by longshoremen

5 Union Texas Petroleum Corp. Vv. PLT Engineering, Inc.,

895 F.2d 1043 (1990), the Fifth Circuit decision that peti-

tioner alleges (Pet. 8-9) to have “compounded th[e] conflict”

caused by Sanders, is not even an LHWCA case, and merely

paraphrases the Weyerhaeuser test in a footnote that can

only be characterized as dictum. 895 F.2d at 1049 n.9.

12

and harbor workers, including ship repairmen, ship-

builders and shipbreakers.°

Finally, to the extent that petitioner argues that

the court of appeals wrongly applied the “integral or

essential part” standard in this case, he presents a

fact-bound issue that does not warrant review by this

Court. The ALJ (Pet. App. A30), the Benefits Re-

view Board (Pet. App. A16), and the court of ap-

peals (Pet. App. A13) have all specifically concluded

that, while the Seagull Inn served some tanker crew

members whose work involved loading and unloading

cargo, its operation was not “essential” to the load-

ing and unloading operation.’ Petitioner has not

claimed that he performed any role independent of his

work in the restaurant that was “essential” to other

longshoring, ship repair, shipbuilding, or shipbreak-

ing work by his employer.* The conclusion that peti-

tioner was not engaged in “maritime employment”

thus warrants no further review.

6 As the Court made clear in Perini, supra, the LHWCA

also covers workers injured over water who would have been

covered before 1972.

7 We do not here endorse the court of appeals’ reliance on

the fact that because the Seagull Inn closed in 1982, and

“Chevron has not been forced to shut down its operations”

(Pet. App. A138), it is clear that work in the restaurant be-

fore 1982 was not “essential to the loading and unloading

process” (Pet. App. Al4). The more pertinent inquiry, in our

view, is whether during his employment by respondent,

claimant’s work was integral or essential to his employer’s

cargo transfer functions. See Pet. App. A16.

® Indeed, the Benefits Review Board ruled (Pet. App. A22)

that even under the less focused Weyerhaeuser standard, peti-

tioner’s work did not satisfy the status requirement of the

Act.

'

:

}

13

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be de-

nied.

Respectfully submitted.

KENNETH W. STARR

Solicitor General

ROBERT P. DAVIS

Solicitor of Labor

ALLEN H. FELDMAN

Associate Solicitor

STEVEN J. MANDEL

Deputy Associate Solicitor

ELLEN L. BEARD

_ Attorney

Department of Labor

AUGUST 1990

Ww ou.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1990 262203 20081