Anderson Construction, Co., Inc., WAB No. 1972-06(a) (WAB June 23, 1972)
CCASE:
CLINTON DAM PROJECT
DDATE:
19720623
TTEXT:
~1
[1] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WAGE APPEALS BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
WAGE APPEALS BOARD
The Prevailing Wage Rates Applicable
to the Clinton Dam Project; U.S. Army Case No. 72-06(a)
Corps of Engineers Invitation to Bid
No. DACW-41-72-B-0071; Wage Dated: June 23, 1972
Determination 72-KS-102; Douglas County,
Kansas
Anderson Construction, Company, Inc.;
Reece Construction Company;
Riddle Contracting;
Cook Construction Company;
Heide-Christolear Construction Co.;
Hixson and Lehenbauer;
Bushman Construction Company;
Van Pak Construction, Inc.
PETITIONERS
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On June 14, 1972, the Wage Appeals Board issued its Decision
in the above matter and copies thereof were promptly furnished
all interested parties.
On June 20, 1972, Counsel for the Assistant Administrator,
Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, [1]
~2
[2] U. S. Department of Labor, citing a telegram received from
Counsel for the Petitioners, requested clarification of the
"Board's meaning with regard to the scope of the area to be
considered in his [the Assistant Administrator's] review" of the
matter in order to comply with the Board's Remand Order for a
recalculation of Wage Decision 72-KS-102 or the issuance of a new
determination in accordance with the Board's findings and
direction.
On the same date, June 20, 1972, by direction of the Board,
the Executive Secretary responded to this inquiry, as follows:
George E. Rivers, Esquire
Counsel for the Assistant Administrator
Employment Standards Administration
Wage and Hour Division
U. S. Department of Labor
Washington, D. C. 20210
Re: Clinton Dam Project
Douglas County, Kansas
Wage Appeals Board Case No. 72-06
Dear Mr. Rivers:
Reference is made to your letter and enclosure of this date on
behalf of the Administrator requesting clarification of the
Decision issued by the Wage Appeals Board on June 14, 1972
in the Clinton Dam case, WAB 72-06, with respect to the scope
of the area to be considered by the Administrator in the
recalculation of Wage Decision 72-KS-102 predetermined for the
Clinton Dam project, or in the issuance of a new wage determination
in accordance with the Board's findings and direction.
The Board has directed me to advise you as follows:
On page 9 of the Board's Decision of June 14th, it was stated:
Under the circumstances, we believe the Administrator was
on the right track when he considered not only the
Melvern Dam but also the Kansas City Power Dam, and [2]
~3
[3] he should also have completed the triangle by including
other heavy construction work currently in progress at
the Perry Dam location . . ."
Under footnote No. 1 to the foregoing paragraph, the Board
again referred to other similar construction jobs in the "triangle
area", the triangle area running from Melvern Dam (Osage County)
to Perry Dam (Jefferson County) to the Kansas City Power and
Light Dam (Linn County), with the Clinton Dam in Douglas County
being in the general center of that triangle.
On page 10 of the Decision, the Board stated that, "under the
circumstances of this case, we find that the Administrator should
have considered all heavy construction projects . . . in the
surrounding counties, including those in Douglas, Shawnee,
Osage, Linn, Miami and Jefferson Counties." These are the
counties forming the triangle area referred to above.
The Board then noted from the record that "surveys already
made by the Administrator indicate that the following projects
should be considered," and listed thirteen specific projects
apparently of a character similar to the job in question, all of
which were located in the triangle area bounded by the six counties
cited above.
By specifying the above six counties and the thirteen heavy
projects therein, considered within the framework of the June 14th
Decision in this case, the Board intended to guide the
Administrator in his wage predetermination function by looking to
these specific counties and these identified projects of a
character similar to the Clinton Dam job. It was not the intention
of the Board to expand into counties further removed from the
Clinton Dam site than the counties comprising the triangle area
referred to in the Decision. Utilizing these counties and these
jobs (plus any other heavy proJects he might find in Douglas
County, where the Clinton Dam is located) was deemed to constitute "a
sufficiently realistic and comprehensive field of data based on payroll [3]
~4
[4] evidence to resolve the issues raised by the
protests and to fulfill his [the Administrator's] statutory
functions fairly and fully," as stated on page 10 of the Decision.
By Direction of the Board:
Peter F. Martin
Executive Secretary,
Wage Appeals Board
Due to clerical inadvertence, copies of the above letter
were not simultaneously directed to all interested parties,
although the Assistant Administrator did forward his file in this
matter, including the June 20th letter of clarification, to the
Department's Kansas City, Missouri Regional Office to be available
for the use of Counsel for Petitioners.
On June 21, 1972, the Board received from Counsel for the
Petitioner copies of a "Petition for Clarification of Decision
of June 14, 1972."
On review of this Petition, and in view of the June 20th
letter of clarification in this case, the Petition for
Clarification received on June 21, 1972 is denied.
Oscar S. Smith, Chairman
Stuart Rothman, Member
Clarence D. Barker, Member [4]
