|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
Texas Heavy Highway Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America,
DDATE:
19680305
TTEXT:
~1
[1] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WAGE APPEALS BOARD
In the Matter of
WAGE APPEALS BOARD
The determination of prevailing CASE NO. 67-12
wage rates under the Davis-Bacon
Act, as extended to the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1956, in
Solicitor's Wage Decision AH-7,274
for Bexar and Atascosa Counties,
Texas Dated: March 5, 1968
Texas Heavy Highway Chapter of the
Associated General Contractors of
America,
Petitioner
BEFORE: Oscar S. Smith, Chairman, Clarence D. Barker, and
Stuart Rothman, Members.
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a proceeding under Order No. 32-63, as amended, of the
Secretary of Labor, following a petition for review filed by the
Texas Heavy Highway Branch of the Associated General Contractors
of America on December 4, 1967, pursuant to the Wage Appeals
Board's rules of procedure (29 CFR Part 7).
The petition relates to Wage Decision AH-7,274, issued by the
Solicitor of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act, as extended to the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, to the Texas Highway Department
for the construction of Project I 37-2(8)110, an Interstate Highway
project located in Bexar County and contiguous Atascosa County, [1]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN1/ See section 115 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, as
codified at 23 United States Code 113. [1]
~2
Texas. Wage Decision AH-7,274, has expired, and has been replaced
by Wage Decision AH-7,957, an identical decision. The petitioner
has indicated that his petition relates to the current wage
decision as well as its predecessor.
The Solicitor, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, and the United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada (UA), AFL-CIO, made presentations in opposition
to the petition. The Laborers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, filed a statement with the Board in support of
the petition.
The question presented to the Board, as framed by the
petitioner, is whether the Solicitor erred in his decision in
limiting and restricting the employment of the pipelayer
classification to the installation of concrete and clay pipe on the
project involved.
The question as presented is sweeping in scope. More
specifically, the question the Board was called upon to answer by
the petition was: What is the prevailing area practice in Bexar
and Atascosa Counties, Texas, for:
(a) installing rigid metal conduit through which electrical
wiring is drawn for purposes of electrical illumination; and
(b) installing metallic pipe of the corrugated iron variety
for the use in culvert construction and drainage, for the purpose
of determining the wage classifications for the subject project. [2]
~3
[3] At the hearing the participants reduced the issue to be
decided by the Board to the area practice for installing rigid
metal conduit through which the wires are pulled for electrical
illumination. Petitioner stated it did not claim in this
proceeding that the area practice in the two counties is for
pipelayers to install metallic pipe to be used for gas, water,
sanitary sewerage and similar uses. On the other hand, at the
hearing the United Association, a party in interest on this issue,
stated that the United Association recognized that in the two
counties pipelayers installed larger dimension metallic pipe of the
corrugated galvanized iron type used for culverts and surface
drainage and similar uses. /FN2/
Accordingly, there is nothing the Board has to decide with
respect to the installation of metallic pipe on this project other
than the prevailing area practice for the installation of rigid
metal conduit for electrical illumination.
Based on an examination of the record before the Solicitor and
of the briefs and supporting materials submitted by all
interested [3]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN2/ The UA claimed jurisdiction over the installation of all
metallic pipe including corrugated galvanized iron for culverts and
surface drainage, but recognized that pipelayers did do the work in
two counties. Additionally, the UA in a post-hearing brief appears
to claim the installation of corrugated galvanized iron [pipe] used
for drainage purposes. However, the Board believes that the
parties at the hearing reached a mutual understanding that no issue
need be raised concerning pipelayers installing such pipe. [3]
~4
[4] persons, as well as the oral presentations of such interested
persons, the Board finds and concludes the following:
The prevailing area practice on highway construction /FN3/ in
Bexar and Atascosa Counties for installing rigid conduit through
which electrical wire is to be pulled is for the work to be done by
workmen classified as pipelayers. The evidence of area practice in
this regard is clear and convincing.
The current wage decision for the project involved should be
changed to reflect this prevailing practice.
In preparing the relevant wage classifications for this
project, the Office of the Solicitor should frame the
classifications consistent with this decision.
Oscar S. Smith, Chairman
Clarence D. Barker, Member
Stuart Rothman, Member [4]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN3/ The critical statutory test of comparison of projects for
purposes of determining wage classifications is "projects of a
character similar" to the project for which the wage classification
is to be made. In the absence of compelling reasons to the
contrary in a particular case, projects of a character similar to
highway construction should be those for other highway
construction. [4]
]]>
|
