|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
PACIFIC WEST CONSTRUCTORS
DDATE:
19780918
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of
PACIFIC WEST CONSTRUCTORS WAB Case No. 78-02
Wage rate for roofer's helpers
Ft. Richardson, Alaska Dated: September 18, 1978
Decision by: Alfred L. Ganna, Chairman, William T. Evans, Member
Thomas M. Phelan, Member
DECISION BY THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
This case is before the Wage Appeals Board on the petition
of Pacific West Constructors to review a decision of the Assistant
Administrator denying a request for an additional classification of
roofer's helpers and the appropriate wage rate for construction
work at Fort Richardson, Alaska.
Petitioner had two contracts at Fort Richardson and neither
of the applicable wage determinations incorporated in the
respective contracts contained a classification and wage rate for
roofer's helpers. When Petitioner requested that the
classification and wage rate be added in accordance with 29 CFR
[sec] 5.5(a)(1)(ii), the contracting officer did not agree and the
request was forwarded to the Wage and Hour Division for a final
determination. The Wage and Hour Division refused the request for
the classification and rate on the basis that the rate proposed was
not conformable to the wage rates in the wage decision, and also
because the Wage and Hour Division was not informed of the duties
of the roofer's helper. [1]
~2
[2] Petitioner requested reconsideration of the Assistant
Administrator's decision at which time the duties of the roofer's
helper were identified. The Assistant Administrator affirmed his
earlier decision on December 28, 1977. On January 17, 1978, a
petition was filed with the Wage Appeals Board requesting review of
the Assistant Administrator's final decision.
The Board considered this matter on the basis of the Petition
for review forwarded to the Board by Pacific West Constructors and
the Statement for the Assistant Administrator, Wage and Hour
Division, filed by the Solicitor of Labor.
In its petition Petitioner makes the point that three
classifications prevail for roofers in the Alaska area: journeyman
roofer, roofer's helper and roofer's apprentice/trainee, as
evidenced by inclusion of the three classifications and their wage
scales in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. They
further point out that elevator constructor's helpers rates are
regularly issued in wage determinations by the Wage and Hour
Division and claim that the rate for roofer's helpers is as
conformable to the other wage rates contained in the applicable
wage determination as the elevator constructor's helpers wage rate,
and further argues that roofer's helpers rates are issued in wage
determinations for other areas of the country.
From a review of the record of the case before the Board it
appears that there is not a sufficient distinction between the
actual [2]
~3
[3] work performed by a journeyman roofer and the work
performed by the helper to justify the issuance of a separate
classification of roofer's helper. Petitioner provided the
contracting officer for both contracts with the following statement
describing the duties of the roofer's helper which the Board
considers to be a true description of their work:
The Roofers Helper performs the same duties as the
Journeyman Roofer with the exception that he is not
allowed to work at the kettle. [(Solicitor's Statement,
Exh. B & C)]
From Article III of the collective bargaining agreement
relied on by Petitioner it is noted that the limitation of the
roofer's helper from working as kettleman lasts for only 3 months.
Thereafter, the roofer's helper may perform exactly the same work
as a journeyman but is not entitled to the journeyman's wage rate.
Since it is the duties actually performed by the worker which
determine how he will be classified there appears to be no basis in
these factual circumstances for establishing an additional
classification and rate for roofer's helpers. The Board finds that
the practice alleged to exist of employing roofer's helpers in
Alaska does not demonstrate a valid distinction between the work of
the roofer and the helper and therefore is not in accordance with
the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act and related statutes.
Petitioner's reliance on the existing practice of the Wage
and Hour Division of issuing wage rates for elevator constructor's
helpers throughout the United States and roofer's helpers in some
areas of the country is not persuasive because the Board must
assume that the circumstances in these instances have been
determined by the Wage and Hour Division to warrant their inclusion
in wage determinations. [3]
~4
[4] In view of these conclusions, the decision of the
Assistant Administrator is hereby affirmed and the petition is
dismissed.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger,
Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [4]
]]>
|
