International Resources Corp., ARB
No. 96-172 (ARB Mar. 27, 1998)
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB CASE NO. 96-172
ALJ CASE NO. 94-SCA-35
DATED: March 27, 1998
In the Matter of:
INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES
CORPORATION
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
This matter arises under the provisions of the McNamara-O'Hara
Service Contract Act of 1965 (SCA or the Act), as amended, 41 U.S.C. § 351 et
seq., and the implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Parts 4 and 8 (1997). Pursuant to
the request of Petitioner, International Resources Corporation (IRC), and Bertram Fountain,
president of IRC, a hearing was held on January 20, 1998, concerning the issues presented in
this case and the circumstances surrounding the decision issued by the presiding
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). For the reasons set forth below, this case is dismissed with
prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was charged with alleged violations of the SCA in connection
with four contracts covered by the Act. Specifically, contracts were awarded to IRC to
provide various custodial and food services for the U.S. Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and
at Whiting Field Naval Air Station in Milton, Florida. Following an investigation, the Wage
and Hour Division alleged SCA violations in the performance of these contracts. Petitioner
requested a hearing before the OALJ, which was held in Washington, D.C. on September 12,
1995.
[Page 2]
The presiding ALJ retired from federal service on January 3, 1996,
before issuing a decision in the case. On March 19, 1996, a Decision and Order finding
against Petitioner and purportedly signed on January 3, 1996 by the presiding ALJ, was sent
to the parties in this case. A Certificate of Service attesting to the purported mailing of the
order on January 3, 1996, was attached to the decision.
Petitioner's counsel, alarmed that the time to appeal the adverse decision
had expired prior to his receipt of the decision, requested an explanation for the delay in
mailing. He was advised that the presiding ALJ had, in fact, retired in January but returned
to the office early in March 1996, and signed and backdated several documents, including the
subject decision. This action created the impression that the decision had been signed and
issued when the ALJ still had the authority to issue decisions. The Acting Chief
Administrative Law Judge, after investigating the factual circumstances surrounding the
issuance of the decision, determined that the decision had been backdated.