WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT, WAB No. 76-05 (WAB Apr. 26, 1976)
CCASE:
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT, ARLINGTON, VA
DDATE:
19760426
TTEXT:
~1
[1] TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE
NAME OF AGENCY: U.S. Department of Labor
Labor Relations and Civil Rights
[Office of the Solicitor]
ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION: 6165-2-2-N-500-72500-2330-000
DATE PREPARED: 4/26/76
NAME: Terry R. Yellig
RE: WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT, ARLINGTON, VA
CASE NO. WAB 76-05
This proceeding is before the Board pursuant to Order No.
21-70, as amended, of the Secretary of Labor on a petition for
review filed by the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration. Oral hearing was held on March 29, 1976 and
opportunity was afforded to file post hearing statements not later
th[a]n April 13, 1976.
The petition asks review of Wage Decision 76-VA-90 issued by
the Employment Standards Administration (ESA) on February 12, 1976
and applicable to certain rehabilitation work on Runway 3-21 at
National Airport. This work is estimated to co[]st $650,000 of
which ninety percent is for asphalt overlay of existing runway and
ten percent is for striping and for adjustments to runway lights
and drainage. The Board identifies three issues to be decided in
this review each of which is discussed below.
1. The civil subdivision. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that
the predetermined rates shall be those which prevail on projects of
a character similar to the contract work in the city, town, village
or other subdivision of the State in which the work is to be
performed. Petitioner contends that the appropriate civil
subdivision in this instance is Arlington County, Virginia -- a
contention with which Counsel for ESA expressed no disagreement.
Counsel for the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-
CIO contends that as National Airport is owned by the Federal
government and is under exclusive Federal control it is a "well-
defined political division of the United States, separate and apart
from both Virginia and the District of Columbia". The [1]
~2
[2] Board views the consequences of Federal ownership and control of
National Airport as not dissimilar to the situation at Federally owned
bases, reservations and similar properties. The issue in this
proceeding is not who controls National Airport but rather what is the
geographic area to look to for wage determination purposes. The civil
subdivision for wage decision purposes normally is the civil division
which the Federal property is contiguously and geographically
associated. We agree with petitioner and with ESA Counsel that for
National Airport the appropriate civil subdivision is Arlington County,
Virginia.
2. The "carve out". Counsel for ESA contends that an
"exception" has been "carved out" at National Airport "as a result
of area wage practice" and that for this reason the appropriate
predetermined rates are not those reflected by similar projects in
Arlington County. The Board cannot accept this argument. The
"carve out" principle recognized by the Board and by ESA in
Washington area wage decisions relates to entire classes of
construction, e.g., "all residential projects", "single family
housing and garden type apartments up to and including 4 stories",
etc. Such a "carve out" principle has not been and cannot be
applied to a single project or a single contract.
3. Similar projects. Petitioner and ESA are in agreement
that projects similar to the rehabilitation of Runway 3-21 are
highway construction projects. The Board does not view the
contract for this work as a contract for highway construction --
nor does it view this contract as one for building construction.
The Board continues to recognize a well established administrative [2]
~3
[3] practice and interpretation adopted at the beginning of the
interstate highway program under which, in the absence of special
circumstances and compelling reasons to do otherwise, non-highway
rates will not b e used as a base for wage decisions on highway
contracts and highway wage rates will not be used as a base for
wage decision on non-highway work.
Upon review of all of the materials and arguments present in
this matter the Board concludes that Decision 76-VA-90 should be
withdrawn and replaced by a new wage decision based upon a current
survey of "heavy" construction projects in Arlington County but not
including contracts for the construction of streets, highways,
buildings residences, etc.. The record before the Board contains
no information in respect to wage rates on "heavy" projects in
Arlington County, e.g., whether they correspond to building
schedules or highway schedules or whether they differ from both of
these. ESA should proceed promptly with such a survey and issue a
new wage decision with due regard for the time urgency attached by
Petitioner to Runway 3-21 construction.
SO ORDERED
Oscar S. Smith, Chairman
Stuart Rothman, Member
Clarence D. Barker, Member [3]
