PRIME ROOFING, INC., WAB Case No. 78-20 (WAB Mar. 7, 1979)
CCASE:
PRIME ROOFING
DDATE:
19790307
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of
PRIME ROOFING, INC. WAB Case No. 78-20
Fallon, NV Dated: March 7, 1979
Decision by: Alfred L. Ganna, Chairman, William T. Evans,
Member, Thomas M. Phelan, Member
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION
The Wage Appeals Board is in receipt of a Request for
Reconsideration from Petitioner of the Board's decision in the
above captioned matter dated January 11, 1979. The Petitioner
argues that since the Board relied on the Working Agreement between
Local Union 224 of the United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers,
Damp and Waterproof Workers' Association and the Union Roofing
Contractors of Northern and Central Nevada in arriving at its
decision, the Board should also give consideration to Article
V(A)(3) and Article IV(J) of the Working Agreement which provide
for a classification of helpers and also provide that helpers are
ed the duties of "handling and/or hoisting of all roofing materials
delivered to the job sites and the . . . tearing off and cleaning
up of an existing roof for purposes of reroofing," respectively.[1]
~2
[2] The Petitioner also argues that it was the prevailing
practice of the roofing construction trade in Reno, Nevada and
vicinity to employ helpers in conformity with the Working Agreement
and therefore the Davis-Bacon Act requires that the Department of
Labor recognize the roofer's helper classification.
Although the Board recognizes the arguments presented by
Petitioner in the Request for Reconsideration, the fact that under
the terms of Article IV(I) of the Working Agreement helpers can be
used for application of roofing materials at 50 percent of the
journeyman roofer's rate if apprentices or journeymen are not
available to man the job distinguishes the roofer's helpers
established in this Working Agreement from those in other
agreements which have been recognized by the Wage and Hour
Division. Roofer's helpers cannot be allowed to perform duties of
the journeyman roofer at wage rates less than that determined for
the journeyman, even though as here, it is not contemplated that
the helpers will generally perform this work and their duties, as
defined, do not include application of roofing materials.
Because the Wage and Hour Division must approve the
classification of helpers prior to their employment on the [2]
~3
[3] project, the fact that roofer's helpers on this project did not
apply any roofing materials to the new roof cannot be considered in
assessing the propriety of the requested classification. The fact
is that under the agreement they could have performed the work and
the approval of a helper classification is based on the language of
the agreement itself, not on an after-the-fact determination of
what was actually done by the employees. The Board uses this same
standard in making its determination. Whether or not they were
actually used as journeymen is therefore not relevant to the
question of a helper classification. For this reason, the
Petitioner's Request for Reconsideration is hereby denied.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger,
Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board
