September 20, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Davis-Bacon Act |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter United Government Security Officers of America, Local 80, ARB No. 00- 007 (ARB Jan. 27, 2000)
ARB Case No. 00-007 In the Matter of:
UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY
In re: Application of Wage Determination
Appearances:
For the Respondent:
Pursuant to the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §351 et seq.; the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§327-32; and 29 C.F.R. Part 8, the Administrative Review Board (Board) received a petition for review filed by United Government Security Officers of America, Local No. 80 (Local 80), seeking review of a letter dated October 5, 1999, from Mr. Timothy Helm of the Office of Enforcement Policy in the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division. Local 80 wrote to Helm requesting that he reverse the Wage and Hour Division's decision that Wage Determination No. 94-2103, Revision 17, is inapplicable to a court security contract performed by AKAL Security in Washington, D.C. Helm rejected Local 80's request and Local 80 filed a petition for review with the Board. On November 30, 1999, Charles E. Pugh, Deputy National Office Program Administrator, wrote to Local 80 stating,
On December 1, 1999, the Deputy Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division filed a motion requesting the Board to dismiss the petition as premature.
The Board's jurisdiction under the Service Contract Act extends only to
a review of "final decisions of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or
authorized representative, and from decisions of Administrative Law Judges [.]" 29 C.F.R.
§8.1(b). Therefore, we GRANT the Deputy Administrator's motion and
DISMISS Local 80's appeal docketed as ARB Case No. 00-007.1 However, once again we note that the
Wage and Hour Division's refusal to initially provide a "final" decision upon a
request for review of a wage determination, or to at the very least inform the party requesting
review that the response is not "final" and detailing the process for obtaining a
"final" decision, has resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of time and resources
by the parties and this Board. See e.g., Defense Threat Reduction Agency, ARB
Case No. 99-108. (Nov. 30, 1999). We again urge the Wage and Hour Division to reconsider
this wasteful practice.
SO ORDERED.
PAUL GREENBERG
CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD
E. COOPER BROWN
1 Local 80 filed a petition
for review of Pugh's "supplemental response" on December 17, 1999. This appeal has been
docketed as ARB Case No.00-030.
|
||||||||
|