Case Name: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al., v Drew Lewis, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
Date of Judgment: 4^th February 1983
Court: U.S.D.C. - District of Columbia Circuit
Judges: Senior Circuit Judge Bazelon, Circuit Judges Wald & Ginsburg
Citation: 699 F.2d 547, 226 U.S.App.D.C.9

Background:  Plaintiff, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ("UBC") filed suit against defendant, Drew Lewis, secretary of transportation ("Secretary") for failure to issue certain maritime regulations.

In 1978, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments, Congress ordered the Secretary to begin requiring employment of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens. This applied to all vessels, rights, platforms, or other vehicles involved in exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf.

The Secretary was to delay enforcement of the regulations for one year. This gave companies ample time to begin complying with regulations.

UBC filed this suit in 1981, contending that the Secretary never issued the regulations. Three months later the Secretary filed a motion to suspend all proceedings for two months until he issued the regulations. Upon enacting them, UBC's claim would be moot.

The Secretary issued the regulations in 1982. The regulations would not be enforceable for one year, as stated above.

UBC filed this appeal, seeking immediate enforcement of the regulations.

Issue:  Whether the regulations can be enacted immediately, or delayed for one year.

Held:

UBC could not get immediate enactment of the regulations. 

The Court agreed with UBC that all employers had been put on notice about the regulations since 1978. However, the Court stated they could find no support in the Amendments for ordering immediate enforcement.  The Amendments specifically gave employers one year to comply with regulations after they were issued.

As a result, the Court must deny immediate enactment of the regulations.  The Court also stated that the one-year delay was a good "transitional" period to allow companies to comply with regulations.

Significance:

The Court here gives power to the plain language of the Amendments. The Secretary was clearly at fault for failing to enact the statute and delay enforcement for one year. Despite his failure to do so, the Court overlooked his error.  They instead looked only to the Amendments to guide their decision.

The Court is focused on preventing injustice. When a statute or amendment involves a great number of people who will be injured by the enactment, the Court will do what is necessary to prevent that.  Here, the employers would be harmed more than UBC, so the Court ruled in their favor.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com