skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
September 21, 2008         DOL Home > OALJ Home > Davis-Bacon Act
USDOL/OALJ Reporter

Military Sealift Command, ARB No. 02-003, ALJ No. 01-CBV-2 (ARB Nov. 29, 2001)


U.S. Department of LaborAdministrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
DOL
Seal

ARB CASE NO. 02-003
ALJ CASE NO. 01-CBV-2
DATE: November 29, 2001

In the Matter of:

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

In re: Applicability of wage rates and
vacation fringe benefits collectively
bargained by Bay Ship Management,
Inc. and American Maritime Officers
and Seafarers International Union of North
America, Atlantic Gulf, Lakes and Inland
Waters District, AFL-CIO to employment
under a contract for operation and maintenance
of 11 large medium speed roll on/roll off
ships worldwide

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD1

Appearances:

For the Administrator:
   
Benton G. Peterson, Esq., Douglas J. Davidson, Esq., Steven J. Mandel, Esq.,
       U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION FOR REVIEW

   This case arose when the Military Sealift Command, Department of the Navy, requested a substantial variance hearing under section 4(c) of the McNamaraO'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 ("SCA"), as amended, 41 U.S.C. §353(c) (1994) and the SCA regulations at 29 C.F.R. §4.10(c)(2001). See also 29 C.F.R. Part 6 Subpart E (2001). The gravamen of the Military Sealift Command's concern was its belief that the vacation fringe benefits established under SCA Wage Determination 99-0007 were excessive as they applied to crews employed by Patriot Holdings, Inc., under Contract No. 5302. These crews were assigned to ships that were in Reduced Operating Status ("ROS") about 90% of the time, i.e., most of their on-duty time was spent working a conventional 40-hour work week while their ships were layberthed along the mainland coasts, with only about 10% of their on-duty time spent in Full Operating Status ("FOS"), i.e., deployed at sea, with the crew essentially on-duty 24 hours per day. Wage Determination 99-0007 mandated a vacation accrual rate for all work time both ROS and FOS at a relatively high accrual level typically earned by maritime workers in Full Operating Status.


[Page 2]

   The Wage and Hour Administrator (Administrator) referred the matter for a hearing before a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who subsequently concluded that a substantial variance in the vacation fringe benefit level existed ("[T]here exists a substantial variance between vacation fringe benefits set out by WD99-0007 for crew members employed on ROS vessels under Contract No. 5302 and the prevailing vacation fringe benefits for similar ROS employment in the East and Gulf Coast localities"). Applicability of Vacation Fringe Benefits Collectively Bargained by Bay Ship Management, Inc., ALJ No. 2001-CBV-2, slip op. at 7 (Sept. 28, 2001). As a remedy, the ALJ ordered the Administrator to issue a new "Wage Determination, effective July 23, 2001, for contract No. 5302, reflecting the prevailing vacation fringe benefits for ROS employment set out in the June and July 2001 collective bargaining agreements between Patriot and six maritime labor unions for the operation of ROS LMSR [Large Medium Speed Roll on/Roll off] vessels." Id.

   The Administrator petitioned the Administrative Review Board to review the ALJ's Initial Decision and Order, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §6.57. The Administrator did not contest the ALJ's underlying substantial variance finding, but argued that the ALJ had exceeded his authority (1) by ordering the Administrator to establish a particular vacation benefit rate and (2) by setting a retroactive effective date for the revised benefit. The Administrator also advised the Board that she had filed a Motion with the ALJ asking him to modify the Initial Decision and Order by deleting "the final paragraph of the decision in which [the ALJ] directed the Administrator to issue a wage determination containing specific wage rates and a specific effective date."

   On October 11, 2001, the ALJ issued an Amended Initial Decision and Order in which the ALJ deleted the final paragraph of the first decision (per the Administrator's request) and instead simply ordered the Administrator to issue a new wage determination in accordance with the ALJ's Decision. On November 19, 2001, the Administrator filed with the ARB a Motion for Withdrawal of Petition for Review. We GRANT the Administrator's Motion; the Administrator's Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED.

   SO ORDERED.

       PAUL GREENBERG
       Chair

       RICHARD A. BEVERLY
       Alternate Member

[ENDNOTES]

1 This appeal has been assigned to a panel of two Board members, as authorized by Secretary's Order 2-96. 61 Fed. Reg. 19,978 §5 (May 3, 1996).



Phone Numbers