CCASE:
Abreen Corporation V. REDDEN GARDENS
DDATE:
19770420
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of
REDDEN GARDENS WAB Case No. 76-03
HUD Project No.
024-44016-LDP/SUP, Dover, H.H. Dated: April 20, 1977
APPEARANCES: Richard Gleason, Esquire for Abreen Corporation
Steven Horowitz, Esquire for Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Ronald Robbins, Esquire, George E. Rivers, Esquire
for the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of
Labor
Decision by: Alfred L. Ganna, Chairman, William T. Evans, Member,
Thomas Phelan, Member
DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
This matter was previously heard by the Wage Appeals Board.
The Board stated in its Decision and Order of June 30, 1976,
resulting from that hearing that it was not "satisfied with the way
either the Department of Labor or the petitioner has handled the
matter thus far," and remanded the case to the Administrator of the
Wage and Hour Division.
The Decision and Order of June 30, 1976, requested that the
petitioner promptly file with the Administrator a full and complete
report on all jobsite work that was brought into question by the
statements of the three complainant employees. The petitioner was
advised of certain specifics to be included in [1]
~2
[2] this report. The Administrator was directed to consider the
petitioner's report along with other material in the record and
thereupon determine a course of action. If a dispute still existed
either party could seek further review by the Board. The Solicitor of
Labor, on behalf of the Assistant Administrator, has filed a statement
seeking to maintain the enforcement position of the Assistant
Administrator and asking the Board to dismiss the pending petition.
The Wage Appeals Board has studied the full record including
statements of the petitioner dated July 27, 1976, and November 24,
1976, and the Solicitor's statement of September 30, 1976, and
finds that the facts presented by the Wage and Hour Division do not
warrant its action against the petitioner.
The Board's decision of June 30, 1976, noted that "no
investigative report was submitted and the Board was advised that
none exists." This is particularly distressing in view of the
conflicting statements of the complainants. Information before
the Board indicates that work was still in progress at the jobsites
at the time the employers made their original statements and leads
to the question as to why some action was not taken by the Wage and
Hour Division to support the allegations of the employees such as
a visit to the project by its field personnel or by requesting a
report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Without any investigative report to support the Administrator's
position and no other convincing evidence, the Board must conclude
that the enforcement position is not justified. [2]
~3
[3] It is ordered that the Administrator of the Wage and Hour
Division dismiss the claim against the petitioner and request the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to release to Abreen
Corporation the amount of $1,044.50 held in escrow by that agency.
BY ORDER OF THE BO[AR]D
Craig Bulger,
Acting Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [3]
