|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
PHCC MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS
DDATE:
19861126
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of
PHCC MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS WAB Case No. 86-20
OF FAIRBANKS, INC.
Prevailing wage rates for Dated: November 26, 1986
renovation of family housing
units at Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska
BEFORE: Alvin Bramow, Chairman, Thomas X. Dunn, Member
Stuart Rothman, Member
DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
This case is before the Wage Appeals Board on the petition of
PHCC Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks, Inc., seeking review of
the decision of the Wage and Hour Division, Branch of Construction
Contract Wage Determinations, dated June 20, 1986. The decision
under review concerns the application of Wage and Hour's Wage
Determination No. 85-AK-0082 to the upgrading of Multiple Family
Housing Units at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
The contract in question calls for renovation of three 8-plex
housing units (2 stories each). This consists of conversion of
the 24 3-bedroom units to 2-bedroom units, changing from steam
to glycol heating, addition of attached garages, replacement of
siding, installation of new basement ceilings and miscellaneous
exterior alterations and utility work. [1]
~2
[2] The Wage and Hour Division issued residential wage rates
for the proposed construction. The petitioner, who is supported
by the Business Agent for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 375 and
by R.A.L. Mechanical, Inc., a contractor, argues that the
mechanical systems on the project are so extensive, amounting to
approximately 35% of the total contract, and require such high
skill that the mechanical portion of the project should be
classified as building construction instead of residential
construction.
The Board considered this appeal on the basis of the Petition
for Review and Petitioner's Response to the Statement on Behalf
of the Administrator filed by PHCC Mechanical Contractors of
Fairbanks, Inc., and the Statement on Behalf of the Administrator
and the record of the appeal before the Wage and Hour Division
filed by the Solicitor of Labor. No request for an oral hearing
was received by the Board.
* * *
After considering the briefs filed in this appeal, it is
noted that at page 11 of petitioner's Response to the Statement
on Behalf of the Administrator that the Air Force canceled the
solicitation for the renovation of family housing units on
September 23, 1986. Therefore, the Board sees that the petitioner
seeks to have the Wage Appeals Board issue an advisory decision
to the Wage and Hour Administrator to provide guidance when
making future wage determinations for residential construction at [2]
~3
[3] Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
The Board does not adopt the procedure of issuing advisory
decisions as to specific projects. Each case should be evaluated
on its own circumstances. The Board prefers to have the issue
presented in an actual case or controversy.
In the Matter of Muskogee Shopping Mall, WAB Case No. 85-26
(January 21, 1986), the Board considered it imperative to resolve
the dispute because of the large number of projects subject to the
statute and regulations in question. The Board does not consider
this to be a case like Muskogee.
A review of the entire record, including the affidavits
submitted with the briefs, indicates that there is sufficient
information showing that laborers and mechanics working on a 100
PSI steamline may be paid at rates other than those contained in
Wage Determination No. 85-AK-0082 made applicable to the subject
project. Whether this is true as to residential construction in
the locality is unknown.
The principle of issuing different rates for incidental
construction is recognized by the Wage and Hour Division in its
All Agency Memorandum No. 131, dated July 14, 1978. An example
given in that memorandum is that when a clearly established
practice of paying different wage rates on specific portions of
building projects is established, different rates may be paid. [3]
~4
[4] For example, paving and utilities are paid at non-building
rates in the construction of buildings on building projects.
Under the guideline, there may be some merit to the
petitioner's allegations that the high-pressure steam pipeline and
utilidors should be paid at rates other than those contained in
Wage Determination No. 85-AK-0082. Therefore, it is suggested
that the Wage and Hour Division conduct an area practice survey
at this time as petitioner indicates the issue will arise again
in the near future.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice
for the reasons stated.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger,
Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [4]
]]>
|
