Friday, January 20th, 2017

BALCA on ad language, travel: Matter of Microsoft

0

"[W]e find that the phrase “may require employer-reimbursed travel” is indistinguishable from the DOL-endorsed phrase “some positions may require travel.” Based on the foregoing, we find that the Employer’s NOF, SWA job order, and advertisements do not contain a job requirement that exceeds that which is on the ETA Form 9089, because it is clear within the overall context of the advertisements that not all of the Marketing and Product Manager positions require travel. We find that the Employer’s advertisements were not misleading, nor did they cause any confusion that could have prevented a potential U.S. applicant from applying for the job opportunity. As such, we find that the CO’s denial of certification was not proper, and reverse the CO’s determination. In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Certifying Officer’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for certification." -