U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20210
ARB CASE NO. 99-021
DATE: January 29, 1999
In the Matter of:
WEEKS MARINE, INC.
In re: Request for addition of conformed
wage rates, Corps of Engineers Mississippi
River Flood Control Project, Louisianna
Appearances:
For the Complainant: Michael Mayeux, Bourg, Louisiana
For the Deputy Administrator Douglas J. Davidson, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
This case is before the Board pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C.
§276a et seq. (DBA), and its implementing regulations. See 29
C.F.R. Parts 1 and 7 (1998).
By letter of December 2, 1998, Weeks Marine, Inc. petitioned the Board
for review of wage determination rates applicable to clamshell oilers employed on a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers flood control project in Louisiana. According to the petition, the wage
determination at issue (LA-970013) did not include a rate for oilers. Weeks Marine had proposed
to the Wage and Hour Division that a rate of $8.00/hr. be allowed for the clamshell oilers,
presumably pursuant to the Davis-Bacon regulations' conformance procedures.
See
[Page 2]
29 C.F.R. §5.5(a)(1)(ii) (1998).
The petition submitted by Weeks Marine did not include any indication that
the company had received a "final decision" on its conformance request from the Wage
and Hour Administrator. On January 7, 1999, we issued a Notice of Appeal and Order to Show
Cause, noting that the Board's jurisdiction to consider cases under the Davis-Bacon Act extends
only to review of "final decisions" of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division (or authorized representative) under 29 C.F.R. Parts 1, 3 and 5. 29 C.F.R.
§7.1(b).1 Without a final decision from the Wage and Hour Division, it was unclear that the Board had jurisdiction
to hear the case.
1 Under the regulations dealing with
Davis-Bacon enforcement actions, the Board also hears appeals of certain decisions issued by
Administrative Law Judges under 29 C.F.R. Part 6. 29 C.F.R. §§6.20, 6.34, 6.45, 6.57.
2 It is unclear whether this
document also was provided to counsel for the Administrator. However, in light of the disposition of
the case, no party has been prejudiced by this omission.