Aetna Bridge Holding Co., ARB NO. 97-095 (ARB Sept. 9, 1997)

	U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges

www.oalj.dol.gov

[skip navigational links] Search | A-Z Index

Find It! on DOL | OALJ Home | OALJ Law Library | About Us | Printer Friendly Version

September 17, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Davis-Bacon Act

USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Aetna Bridge Holding Co., ARB CASE NO. 97-095 (ARB Sept. 9, 1997)

U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

ARB CASE NO. 97-095
(Formerly ARB Case No. 96-122)
(Formerly WAB Case No. 96-06)
DATE: September 9, 1997

In the Matter of:

AETNA BRIDGE HOLDING
COMPANY, General Contractor
and

COLETTA'S DOWNTOWN AUTO
SERVICES INC.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

ORDER DENYING SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REVIEW

On October 29, 1996, the Administrative Review Board found that tow truck drivers who assist motorists and tow disabled vehicles from travel lanes on a bridge undergoing repair financed in part with funds under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (FHwA) were not laborers or mechanics covered by the Davis-Bacon Act or its Related Act, the FHwA. The bridge repair contractor, Aetna Bridge Holding Company, seeks in this Supplemental Petition for Review award of prejudgment interest on progress payment funds withheld in 1993 by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation at the request of the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division after its investigation.

[Page 2]

The Petition is denied.¹ The cases cited and principles discussed in Aetna's Supplemental Petition are inapposite. The ARB simply has no statutory authority to waive sovereign immunity and award interest. See Mast Construction, Inc., WAB (Wage Appeals Board) Case No. 84-22 (March 14, 1986); Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 314-15 (1986). Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

DAVID A. O'BRIEN
Chair

KARL J. SANDSTROM
Member

JOYCE D. MILLER
Alternate Member

[ENDNOTES] ¹ Although there was some delay, about six months, in referring this matter to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a hearing, the remainder of the time from that referral to the Board's decision was accounted for by the regular hearing and review process. We note that Aetna did not file its Supplemental Petition until seven months after the Board's decision.