|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
MS. BARBARA BASS
DDATE:
19780320
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of
MS. BARBARA BASS
The Petition for Review from Ms. WAB Case No. 77-26
Barbara Bass in connection with
the Case of S & G Construction
Company, Dallas, Texas Dated: March 20, 1978
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Ms. Barbara Bass, petitioner in this case, is requesting
that the Wage Appeals Board review a decision of the Administrator,
Wage and Hour Division, dated September 28, 1977, denying
Petitioner's request that the Administrator review an order of the
Administrative Law Judge in the Matter of S&G Construction Company
(S&G), Case No. 76-DB-103. The basis of the Judge's Order was a
stipulation agreement entered into between the Government and S&G
Construction Company on November 13, 1975, in settlement of alleged
underpayments of wages in violation of Davis-Bacon labor standards
provisions.
Petitioner had been an employee of S&G and was one of 213
employees who were underpaid according to a Wage and Hour
investigation of the work performed by S&G on a HUD housing
project in Austin, Texas. Petitioner was advised by a Wage and
Hour representative that she was due $470.07 in back wages. S&G
paid $212.80 to petitioner and disputed the validity of the balance
claimed due her and the other employees. A hearing was scheduled
pursuant to 29 CFR [sec] 5.11(b), however, prior to the hearing
counsel for the Department and counsel for S&G enter[ed] into a
stipulation agreement providing that the 213 employees were to be
paid specified amounts totalling $25,000. Petitioner was to be
paid $141. The Administrative Law Judge adopted the stipulation
agreement and therefore, according to the computations of the
Department, petitioner was still due approximately [1]
~2
[2] $116 from the contractor The proceedings before the Administrative
Law Judge were dismissed upon notification that $25,000 had been
transferred by S&G to the Department of Labor for disbursement to the
employees. Petitioner is challenging the authority of the Department to
compromise her claim of nonpayment of the full wages which the
Department determined to be due her, and lack of notice and therefore
her lack of participation in the decision to settle the claim.
Upon review of the petition and supporting memorandum and
the memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Petitioner, and the record of the case filed on behalf of the Wage
and Hour Division by the Solicitor of Labor, the Wage Appeals Board
hereby declines to accept this petition. The Board recognizes that
its authorities and responsibilities arise from Secretary of
Labor's Order 24-70, dated October 7, 1970, wherein the Board is
delegated the authority and assigned the responsibility to act as
the authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor in deciding
appeals, concerning questions of fact and law, from final decisions
of the Assistant Secretary of Workplace Standards (now Employment
Standards), or his delegees.
It seems to the Board that with respect to the hearing
before the Administrative Law Judge provided for in 29 CFR [sec]
5.11(b) the Department of Labor represents all of the employees
affected by labor standards violations and that representation and
notice to each of these employees is not required by the
Regulations. It is assumed that the Wage and Hour Division will
pursue the claims in a manner to bring the most beneficial
treatment to the largest number of employees. It also seems to the
Board that the fact that one employee of this group is personally
dissatisfied with the Department's representation of that
employee's interests does not establish that stricter standards are
necessary. What Petitioner is actually seeking here is further
administrative review of the Administrative Law Judge's handling of
this case. It is not the function of the Board as defined in the
Secretary's Order to oversee the legal process resulting in the
compromise of claims.
Furthermore, if Petitioner is dissatisfied with the
administrative handling of her claim by the Wage and Hour Division,
and is dissatisfied with the compromise of her claim joined with
the other employee's claims, her remedy is to be found in the
courts, not in a further administrative proceeding before this
Board. (See p.6, Statement of the Assistant Administrator for
the Administrator, Wage and Hour (May 31, 1977)). [2]
~3
[3] The motion of the Assistant Administrator to dismiss this
petition is hereby granted.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger, Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [3]
]]>
|
