TELE-SENTRY SECURITY, INC., 86-DBA-33 and 55 (ALJ Sept. 11, 1987)
CCASE:
TELE-SENTRY SECURITY, INC.,
DDATE:
19870911
TTEXT:
~1
[1] [87-43.WAB ATTACHMENT]
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
Heritage Plaza, Suite 530
111 Veterans Memorial Boulevard
Metairie, Louisiana 70005
DATE: September 11, 1987
CASE NO. 86-DBA-33
86-DBA-55
IN THE MATTER OF
TELE-SENTRY SECURITY, INC.,
Prime Contractor
Appearances: Stephen J. Simko, Jr., Attorney
and Larry A. Auerback, Attorney
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Solicitor
Room 339
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
For the Department of Labor
James E. Watt, President
Tele-Sentry Security, Inc.
Suite 107
510 South 52nd Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85281
For Tele-Sentry Security, Inc.,
Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE QUENTIN P. McCOLGIN
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a consolidation of two cases involving alleged
violations of the Contract Work Hour[s] and Safety Standards Act,
40 U.S.C. [sec] 327 et seq., and the Davis[-]Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C.
276(a) et seq., by the respondent, Telesentry Security, Inc.
(TSSI). 86-DBA-55 concerns a contract with the General Services
Administration (GSA) for the installation of security systems in
the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and the U.S. Courthouse
in Atlanta, Georgia. 84-DBA-33 concerns a contract with the
United States Air Force for the upgrade of the fire alarm system
at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. Both cases contain a
dispute as to the payment of prevailing wage rates by
respondent. Additionally, the Air Force contract case contains a
dispute as to overtime pay. [1]
~2
[2] This-case was referred to the Office' of Administrative Law
Judges on May 15, 1984. For the convenience of the witnesses a
hearing was held in Atlanta, Georgia on August 4, 1986 and in
Gulfport, Mississippi on August 11, 1986. /FN1/ Evidence relating
to both cases was taken at both hearings. The parties were afforded
an opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of
their respective positions. Post-hearing briefs were submitted
by both the respondent, Tele-Sentry Security, Inc. and the
Administrator. Having considered all of the evidence and argument,
the undersigned does hereby issue the findings, conclusions and
order set forth below.
Issues
This matter contains three issues to be resolved.
1. Did respondent pay its employees in accordance with the
applicable wage rate for the classification of work they
performed in regard to Contract Number GS-04-B-81006
with the GSA in Atlanta, Georgia?
2. Did respondent pay its employees in accordance with the
applicable wage rate for the classification of work they
performed in regard to Contract Number F22600-81-C0028
with the U.S. Air Force at Keesler AFB, Mississippi?
3. Whether certain employees of respondent were entitled to
overtime pay for work performed in connection with the
job identified as Contract Number F22600-81-C0028 at
Keesler AFB, Mississippi?
Statement of the Case
GSA CONTRACT - ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Many of the facts surrounding this case are undisputed and are
supported by the testimony and exhibits offered by both parties.
TSSI was awarded contract number GS-04-B-81006 on March 20, 1981.
(LX Q). The work included installing a perimeter magnetic door
contact, a door access control system, a closed circuit television
system and an intercom system. (TA pp. 21-24). The contract price
of the work was $125,000.00. (LX Q). [2]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN1/ All transcript references will be made as follows: TA for
the Atlanta transcript; TG for the Gulfport transcript. [2]
~3
[3] Although work was to be completed 120 days after notice to
proceed, the period for which wage payments are in dispute runs
from September of 1981 to October of 1982. (LX Q; LX K).
Employees were hired by respondent to install conduit, pull
wire and cable into the conduit, mount electrical boxes and run
cable not in conduit between these boxes and a central control
station. The respondent classified these employees as
Electrician Laborers and as such paid them $8.43 per hour as
listed in Wage Decision GA-80-1006 and its modifications (TA pp.
21-24; LX B p. 7). This wage rate was that of Laborer, Group 1.
Respondent classified his supervisor as an Electrician, Wireman
and paid him $15.60 per hour as required by the wage decision for
that category. (TA pp. 26-27; LX V p. 6). The supervisor made
all the electrical connections for the installation which took
approximately fifteen percent of his time. (TA p. 24). The
installation consisted of mainly 24 volt equipment and a few 120
volt electrical power feeds to that equipment. (TA pp. 21-23).
There are some discrepancies in the testimony of James E.
Watt, president of TSSI, and David A. Henson, Electrical Engineer
for GSA. /FN2/ Mr. Henson testified that he informed Mr. Watt that
electrician's wage rates were appropriate for the work to be
done. (TA p. 81). Mr. Henson denied that he acquiesced in the
paying of laborer's wages for the work to be performed under the
contract. (TA pp. 80-81). Mr. Watt testified that Mr. Henson
approved the use of laborers to run conduit. (TA p. 117). Mr.
Henson further testified that even after Mr. Watt had been
alerted that electrician's not laborer's wages were to be paid,
Mr. Watt "reaffirmed his bid without commenting or taking
exception to any of the wage rates shown in the project
specifications." (TA p. 78). Mr. Watt confirmed that he did not
seek a review of the wage determination made for the Atlanta
labor market. (TA p. 131). Nevertheless, the thrust of the
defense presented in this proceeding is essentia[l]ly a challenge
to the correctness of the wage determination which was not
appealed.
At the hearing, a collection of telephone directory
advertisements, the State of Georgia Construction Industry
Licensing Board Act and the State of Arizona Registrar of
Contractors Statutes and Rules was presented to support the
contention that low voltage fire and security alarm work was
separate and distinct from electrical work. Post-hearing Mr.
Watt submitted excerpts from the U.S. Department of Labor, [3]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN2/ Mr. James E. Watt, President of Tele-Sentry Security, Inc. is
representing respondent TSSI in this matter. He is also a
principal witness. [3]
~4
[4] Directory of Occupational Titles,- Fourth Edition, 1977. The
directory contains separate definitions for "protective signal"
workers and "electricians."
Martin Jack Ray, Assistant Business Manager for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, (IBEW) Local
Union 613 testified that laborers were not used to run conduit or
pull wire. (TA pp. 29, 34). He testified that electricians were
used to install security systems similar in nature to those
installed under the contract in question. (TA pp. 30-33). Also,
he explained that an electrician laborer was a man who loaded and
unloaded conduits and electrical equipment, but did not install
any of those materials. (TA pp. 46-48).
Ronald Arthur Lundstrom, President of Whitehead Electric
Company, an electrical contracting firm, testified that his firm
installed security systems and used electricians exclusively for
the installations. (TA pp. 50-52). He testified that this work
included the running of conduit and the installation of wire both
in and out of conduit. (TA pp. 51-52). Edgar Collins Walton the
owner of Dixie Electric Company, an electrical contracting firm,
testified in the same vein as Mr. Lundstrom. (TA p. 59). He
stated that his firm installed security systems and used
electricians exclusively to do so. (TA pp. 60-62). John W. Womack
Secretary-Treasurer of Womack Electric Company, Incorporated,
another electrical contracting firm, also testified that
electricians were used exclusively in the installation of low
voltage electrical systems. (TA pp. 67-70 ).
AIR FORCE CONTRACT - KEESLER AFB, MISSISSIPPI
As with the GSA contract many of the facts surrounding this
case are undisputed. TSSI was awarded contract number
F22600-81-C0028 on April 7, 1981 (LX A). The work included
installation of smoke detectors, installation of new fire alarm
equipment, installation of a new central fire alarm receiver in
the base fire state and modification or replacement of existing
fire alarm transmitters. (GS p. 25; LX A; TX 20). The contract
price of the work was $420,000.00 with a completion time of 270
days after notice to proceed. (LX A). September, 1981 through
April, 1982 is the period for which wage payments are in dispute.
Wage Decision MS-81-1174 was applicable to this job. (LX
B). $13. 25 per hour was the listed rate for electricians and
$6.80 per hour was the listed rate for laborers. (LX B). /FN3/
As [4]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN3/ Wage Decision Number MS-81-1174 does not contain a category
called electrician laborer as did Wage Decision Number
GA-80-1006. MS-81-1174 lists only unskilled laborers. (TG p. 65;
LX V p. 7; LX B). [4]
~5
[5] with the GSA contract, the respondent hired employees to run
conduit, pull wire and cable, install electrical connection boxes
and mount electrical and fire alarm panels. (TG pp. 29-30, 33,
36, 98, 114, 145). Respondent classified these people as laborers
and paid them $8.40 per hour. (TG p. 36: LX P). Respondent paid
his supervisor, whom he classified as an electrician $14.02 per
hour. (LX G). Respondent also paid some other employees as
electricians when they were installing smoke detectors. (TG pp.
115; LX G).
Harold Lloyd Lee, Business Manager for the IBEW, was called
to testify. (TG p. 41). The local that he worked for covered
twelve Mississippi counties from Hattiesburg south to the Gulf of
Mexico. (TG p. 42). Mr. Lee testified that installing conduit
was exclusively within the purview of electricians. (TG p. 42).
He further testified that only electricians would mount
electrical or fire panels and pull wire. (TG p. 43). Thomas C.
Morgan, President of Sharp Electric, Incorporated testified that
electricians or their apprentices would exclusively do the work
of running conduit, pulling wire and mounting electrical and fire
alarm boxes. (TG pp. 57-59). Mr. Morgan testified that an
apprentice would be a worker registered in a[n] approved
apprenticeship program with the IBEW. (TG pp. 59-60). He also
stated that he was not familiar with a category of employee
called "electrical helper." (TG p. 59). Sharp Electric does
electrical construction work, similar in nature to that required
under the Air Force contract, in the Southern thirteen counties
of Mississippi. (TG pp. 58, 60-61).
Robert D. Foster, Compliance Officer with the Wage and Hour
Division[] of the U.S. Department of Labor testified in regard to
his investigation of Tele-Sentry Security, Inc. (TG p. 68). He
testified that the investigation encompassed the performance of
the Air Force contract and that the respondent's employees were
owed money under both the Davis-Bacon Act (DBRA) and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA). (TG pp. 68-70 ) . He
stated that he saw, "people using screwdrivers, snips, pliers,
hammers, drills, this type of thing, the normal tools that you
would see an electrician or a craftsman wear." (TG p. 69). From
this Mr. Foster concluded that the people were doing
electricians' work and thus made computations for the amounts
owed them under the DBRA. Mr. Foster further testified that he
determined that each employee worked thirty minutes overtime
every morning prior to the start time recorded. (TG pp. 70-71 ) .
He found that respondent's employees were required to report to a
trailer for 7:00 o'clock in the morning. (TG pp. 73-74). He
continued that not every worker was present at 7:00 o'clock
everyday and accordingly he reduced the extra time worked per [5]
~6
[6] week for each employee. /FN4/ (TG p. 73). Mr. Foster also
stated that he did not attempt to measure time in the afternoons.
(TG p. 88). Mr. Foster calculated the amount owed the employees
under the CWHSSA resulting from these findings. /FN5/
Several of the TSSI employees that worked the job in
question testified at the hearing. Kenneth L. Burton testified
that he was instructed by Al Brady, the TSSI job superintendent,
to be at the trailer about 7:00 o'clock every morning. (TG p.
30). At that time Burton would draw his tools and materials and
proceed to the actual job site at about 7:30. (TG pp. 30-31).
Burton testified that he drank coffee between 7:00 and 7:30. (TG
p. 32). Joseph D. Smith initially testified that he could not
recall whether he reported to work at 7:00 or 7:30. (TG p. 91).
Upon being shown a previous statement signed by him, Mr. Smith
testified that he was told by Al Brady to arrive at 7:00 (TR
pp. 110-111; LX W).
Mr. Wayne Brady, son of Al Brady job superintendent,
testified that he had to get to the trailer early to be at the
job site for 7:30. (TG pp. 115-116, 119). Wayne Brady went on to
say that he was at the job between 7:20 and 7:25. (TG p. 116).
Mr. Brady was also shown his previous statement that he arrived
at the trailer at 7:00. (TG p. 120; LX X). Mr. Brady said that
early arrival was not mandatory, but he did not dispute the
accuracy of his prior statement. (TG p. 122). James C. Auld
testified that he arrived on the job between 7:10 and 7:20 every
morning, but that this was after the arrival of most of the other
men. (TG pp. 145-146, 156-157). Mr. Auld was shown his prior
statement showing that he arrived at the trailer between 7:00 and
7:10. (TG p. 151; LX Y). He did not dispute the accuracy of his
prior statement. (TG p. 152). [6]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN4/ Mr. Foster noted that although the employees were required to
report to the trailer at 7:00 a.m., not every employee arrived on
time every day. As such Mr. Foster in conference with TSSI
agreed to reduce the extra hours worked to arrive at a figure
that reasonably reflected actual practices. (TG p. 73 ) . To do
this one day per week of the time attributed to the early start
was eliminated. For example, if an employee worked 5 days he was
given credit for an extra thirty minutes for 4 days, rendering a
weekly total of 2 hours not 2 1/2 hours attributable to the 7:00
a.m. arrival. (TG p. 73 LX F).
/FN5/ Mr. Foster's calculations for amounts owed under both the
DBRA and the CWHSSA are found in Labor Exhibits D, E and F. [6]
~7
[7] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
It is-undisputed that respondent's employees performed the
work of running conduit, pulling wire and mounting electrical
boxes and panels while on both the Atlanta and Keesler, AFB
jobs. It is further undisputed that respondent paid these
employees consistent with its classification of them as
"Electrician; Laborer" listed in Wage Decision GA-80-1006 for the
Atlanta job and for the Keesler, AFB job respondent classified
the employees as laborers and paid them the same wages as the
Atlanta job employees. What is in dispute is the accuracy of the
classifications. Respondent has several contentions. First,
TSSI contends that low voltage fire and security installations
are not part of electrical work in general and as such no
category in either Wage Decision is applicable to this type of
work. Second, TSSI contends that it had the agreement of GSA
and the Air Force to classify and pay its employees as laborers.
Third, TSSI contends that the work of running conduits, pulling
wire and mounting boxes required no electrical skill or knowledge
and could be performed by virtually unskilled laborers.
Therefore, it would not be necessary to pay electricians' wages;
for work that did not require all of an electrician's skill.
The Administrator, in reliance on Matter of Fry Brothers
Corp., [1973-78 Transfer Binder, Wages-Hours Lab. L. Rep. (CCH)
[par] 31,113 (July 8, 1977), opposes respondent's contention.
First, the Administrator contends that TSSI's employees were doing
work that was within the exclusive domain of electricians and as
such they must be paid as electricians regardless of the industry
they are employed in or the respondent's arbitrary classification.
Second, the Administrator contends that neither the GSA or the
Air Force had the authority to determine classifications of wage
rates as this authority is vested exclusively in the Department
of Labor. Third, the Administrator contends that an employer may
not divide the work ascribed to a single labor classification
according to skill level required and reduce wage rates as a
result of the division.
To challenge a wage determination 29 C.F.R. [sec] 1.8 allows
an interested party to seek reconsideration by the Administrator of
a wage decision. 29 C.F.R. [sec] 1.9 allows an interested party to
appeal the results of its request under [sec] 1.8 to the Wage
Appeals Board. Fry speaks to the timeliness of a wage
determination challenge.
When an interested person in the construction industry
desires to challenge a practice of the Labor Department
to accept the negotiated wage rates as prevailing without
a wage data survey, it is necessary that the attack come [7]
~8
[8] before the Labor Department decision becomes the
basis upon which bids are taken. It should not be raised
at the enforcement stage.
Lab. L. Rep. (CCH) [par] 31,113. The evidence shows that while TSSI
was cognizant of the fact that no classification for low voltage
fire and security system installer was contained in either wage
determination, it did not pursue a request to have a wage data
survey performed to determine the prevailing wage for this type
of work. (TA pp. 127-131). Thus, respondent is precluded from
challenging the wage determination in this proceeding and the
wage rates specified in Wage Decision GA-80-1006 controls with
respect to the Atlanta contract and Wage Decision MS-81-1174
controls with respect to the Keesler, AFB contract.
The essence of respondent's second contention is that he
relied on and was in conformity with an agreement reached with
the GSA as to workers' wages. Respondent alleges that David
Henson, Electrical Engineer with the GSA, approved the
classifications of the employees as laborers as opposed to
electricians. Respondent further alleges that the Air Force too
approved the classification of its employees as laborers. (TA p.
117). Mr. Henson denied having given such approval, however, it
is not necessary to resolve this factual dispute. "Under the
Portal to Portal Act (29 U.S.C. 259 /FN6/ [)] only a written ruling
of [8]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN6/ 29 U.S.C. 259 states in relevant part:
(a) In any action or proceeding based on any act or
omission on or after May 14, 1947, no employer shall be
subject to any liability or punishment for or on account
of the failure of the employer to pay minimum wages or
overtime compensation under the Bacon-Davis Act [40
U.S.C.A. [sec] 276a et seq.], if he pleads and proves
that the act or omission complained of was in good faith
in conformity with and in reliance on any written
administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or
interpretation, of the agency of the United States
specified in subsection (b) of this section,
* * *
(b) The agency referred to in subsection (a) of this
section shall be -
* * *
(3) in the case of the Bacon-Davis Act [40 U.S.C.A. [sec]
276a et seq.] - the Secretary of Labor. [8]
~9
[9] the Secretary of Labor can be relied upon as a defense against
liability for wages which must be paid under the Davis-Bacon
Act." Fry, Lab. L. Rep. (CCH) [par] 31,113. Thus, the claimed
verbal approval by GSA and Air Force officials is patently
insufficient to establish the defense of good faith reliance.
See Hodgson v. Square A. Co., 459 F.2d 805 (6th Cir. 1972).
Respondent's second contention must therefore fail as a matter of
law.
Respondents final contention is that the running of conduit,
pulling of wire and mounting of boxes do not require all of the
skill or knowledge possessed by electricians and as such it is
the common practice of the non-union fire and security alarm
business to classify workers doing the above listed tasks as
laborers and to pay them accordingly. This position runs afoul
of Fry on two counts.
First, Fry holds that where a prevailing wage determination
is based on negotiated (union) wage rates, the classifications of
work which are the basis of the wage rates must govern. Lab. L..
Rep. (CCH) [par] 31,113. In other words, if the negotiated wage
rate for an electrician is based on the fact that an electrician
performs tasks X, Y and Z then any employee performing tasks X, Y
and Z must be classified and paid as an electrician.
Second, Fry specifically prohibits the division of a single
class of work into subclasses based on the degree of skill
required to perform the different tasks encompassed by the single
classification.
Under established principles of Davis-Bacon Act
administration, when the wage predetermination schedule
contains only one wage rate for the carpenter
classification without intermediate rates, it is not
permissible for contractors who come on the project site,
whether organized or unorganized, to divide work
customarily considered to be the work of the carpenters'
craft into several parts measured according to the
contractor by his assessment of the degree of skill of
the employee and to pay for such division of the work at
less than the specified rate for the carpenters' craft.
Lab. L. Rep. (CCH) [par] 31,113. Fry concerned the carpenters'
craft and these cases concern the electrical craft, but the
principle is identical. [9]
~10
[10] It is undisputed that TSSI's employees ran conduit, pulled
wire and cable and mounted electrical boxes in performance of the
Atlanta contract. Testimony from Martin J. Ray, Assistant
Business Manager of IBEW Local 613, Ronald A. Lun[d]strom, Edgar C.
Walton and John W. Womack - all three officers for electrical
contracting firms - unequivocally showed that the such activities
were within the ambit of work usually, customarily and
exclusively performed by electricians. (TA pp. 30-33, 50-52
60-62, 67-70). Mr. Ray further testified that the category
Electrician, Laborer applied only to a man who loaded and
unloaded, but did not install conduits and other electrical
equipment. (TA pp. 46-48).
It is undisputed that TSSI's employees ran conduit, pulled
wire and mounted electrical and fire panels in performance of the
Keesler, AFB contract. Testimony was given by Harold L. Lee,
Business Manager for the IBEW local covering Southern Mississippi
that exclusively electricians performed the tasks of running
conduit, pulling wire and mounting electrical and fire panels.
(TG pp. 42-43). This was corroborated by the testimony of Thomas
C. Morgan, President of an electrical contracting firm doing
business in Southern Mississippi. (TG pp. 57-59).
In consideration of the above evidence, the undersigned
finds that for both the Atlanta and Keesler, AFB contracts the
work performed by TSSI's employees was of a type performed
exclusively by electricians under the classification systems that
served as the basis for their respective Wage Decisions. The
employees who worked on the Atlanta job (Contract No.
GS-04-B-810006) should have been paid in accordance with the
minimum wage rate for electricians listed in Wage Decision
GA-80-1006, i.e., $15.60 per hour. The employees who worked on
the Keesler, AFB job (Contract No. F22600-81-C0028) should have
been paid in accordance with the minimum wage rate for
electricians listed in Wage Decision MS-81-1174, i.e., $13.25 per
hour.
In addition to the classification dispute, the Administrator
contends that TSSI employees were due payment for time that was
worked, but not recorded on their daily time sheets for the
Keesler, AFB job. This allegation is based on the observations
of Robert D. Forster, Compliance Officer with the Wage and Hour
Division of the U.S. Department of Labor. He testified that the
employees were required to arrive thirty minutes prior to the
official start of their work day to receive instructions and draw
tools and supplies. (TG pp. 70-71). Respondent denies this.
The evidence on this issue consists of the testimony of the
compliance officer and that of respondent's former employees.
Kenneth L. Burton, Joseph D. Smith, Wayne A. Brady and James C. [10]
~11
[11] Auld, all employees of TSSI on the Keesler AFB job,
testified at the hearing. Smith, Brady and Auld had made prior
statements to the Department of Labor investigator which they were
shown during their testimony. (LX W, X, Y). Burton testified that
he was told by the TSSI job superintendent to report to the trailer
for 7:00 o'clock not a 7:30 when the recorded time began. (TG p.
30). Smith testified that he also was instructed to arrive at the
trailer for 7:00. (TG pp. 110-111). Brady, son of the job
superintendent, testified that the 7:00 o'clock arrival at the
trailer was not mandatory. (TG p. 122). Auld testified that he
arrived at the trailer between 7:00 and 7:10 every morning. (TG
pp. 151, 152). All of the men were in concurrence that each
morning they reported to the trailer where they were given
instructions and drew their tools and supplies. (TG pp. 31,
116). The testimony shows that the employees reported to the
trailer in sufficient time in advance of 7:30 a.m. so that they
could be at their designated job site for that day at 7:30 a.m.
(TG pp. 30-31, 107, 122, 157-158; LX W; LX X; LX Y).
The only matters presented that disputes the foregoing,
consists of the extra-judicial statements of respondent's
representative, Mr. Watt. The statements appear on pages 11 and
12 of respondent's post-hearing brief submitted by Mr. Watt.
Since these statements are not in evidence, were not made under
oath and were not subject to cross-examination, they cannot be
considered here. Thus, the evidence which established that
respondent's employees on the Keesler, AFB job were required to
report to work in advance of the 7:30 a.m. official starting time
stands unrefut[]ed.
The issue as to whether this time is compensable is governed
by the interpretation of the portal to portal provision of the
Fair Labor Standards Act contained in Steiner v. Mitchell, 350
U.S. 247 (1956). The U.S. Supreme Court said,
We, therefore, conclude that activities performed either
before or after the regular work shift, on or off the
production line, are compensable under the portal to
portal provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act if
those activities are an integral and indispensable part
of the principal activities for which covered workman are
employed and are not specifically excluded by Section
4(a)(1).
350 U.S. at 335.
From the evidence the undersigned finds that TSSI's employees
on the Keesler, AFB job did begin to work thirty minutes prior to
their recorded starting time. The undersigned [11]
~12
[12] further finds that the receiving of instructions, drawing of tools
and loading of supplies was an integral and indispensable part of the
employees' principal task of installing a fire alarm system, within the
meaning of Steiner v. Mitchell. As such the employees should receive
compensation for this time.
The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration Wage and Hour Division has prepared a Summary of
Unpaid Wages (Form WH-56) under the Davis-Bacon Act for both the
Atlanta and Keesler, AFB contracts of Tele-Sentry Security, Inc.
(LX R p. l; LX D p. 2). The Wage and Hour Division has also
prepared a Summary of Unpaid Wages (Form WH-56) under the
Contract Work Hour and Safety Standards Act. (LX D p. 3). All of
these summary forms were supported by the appropriate Wage
Transcription and Computation Sheets (Form WH-55) included in the
record of this case. (LX D; LX E; LX F). Although respondent
challenged the calculations on earlier WH-55 forms, it did not
challenge the calculations in evidence. (TG pp. 78-79, 84-89).
The undersigned finds that identity of the affected employees and
the amounts owed to them are accurately represented on the
summary of Unpaid Wages forms. (LX K p. 1; LX D p. 2; LX D p. 3).
ORDER
1. As a result of violations of the Davis-Bacon Act, in
performance of Contract Number GS-04-B-81006, the Respondent shall
pay its employees unpaid wages as listed below:
Employee Gross Amount Due
C. Ayers $11,232.01
R. Bowen 7,999.55
W. Bruxton 507.28
R. Charles 1,436.92
M. Fauble 3,760.03
E. Finney 1,355.13
R. Heeter 734.93
D. Hewitt 13,361.30
B. Karr 2,160.07
B. Knotts 874.74
D. Robinson 2,871.59
K. Street 9,022.20
2. As a result of violations of both the Davis-Bacon Act, and
the Contract Work Hour[s] and Safety Standards Act in performance
of Contract Number F22600-81-C0028 the Respondent shall pay its
employees for unpaid wages as listed below: [12]
~13
[13] Employee Gross Amount Due
J. Auld $4,374.24
E. Blair 5,405.44
A. Brady 1,271.76
W. Brady 4,624.86
R. Burton 5,130.55
T. Hammack 1,147.34
D. Larimar 6,604.02
J. Pineau 326.88
J. Smith 3,284.51
QUENTIN P. McCOLGIN
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: []
Metairie, Louisiana
QPMC:ea
E/24 [13]
