Opinion ID: 1298375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the return transportation regulation

Text: Vail and the Department argue that, even if the statute does not require Coffman to provide full return transportation expenses, 8 AAC 20.030(1) (eff. 4/17/74) imposes a broader duty on the employer. Coffman contends that the regulation is invalid because it is not reasonably necessary to carry out the statutory purpose. A regulation promulgated by an administrative agency must be consistent with and reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the authorizing statute. State v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 723 P.2d 76, 78 (Alaska 1986); AS 44.62.030. A regulation is consistent with a statute if it bears a reasonable relationship to the statutory objective. 723 P.2d at 78. The burden of proving that the regulation is invalid rests with the party challenging it. Id. The Department has promulgated a regulation defining return transportation as all transportation and costs as originally furnished to, financed for, or provided to an employee by an employer. 8 AAC 20.030(1). If the regulation is valid, Coffman must pay to transport the Vails and their goods back to Oregon, because Coffman provided their transportation from Oregon to Alaska at the time of hire. Although the regulation was first promulgated in 1974, and the substance of the Department's interpretation has not changed in the ensuing fifteen years, we do not believe that the regulation is reasonably necessary to carry out the statutory purpose of securing return transportation for seasonal employees. The decision of the superior court is AFFIRMED.