MET ELECTRICAL TESTING CO., INC. WAB No. 88-17 (WAB May 22, 1990) (denying reconsideration)
CCASE:
MET ELECTRICAL TESTING COMPANY, INC.
DDATE:
19900522
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of
MET ELECTRICAL TESTING COMPANY, INC. WAB Case No. 88-17
Additional classifications for (formerly WAB 86-12)
transformer repairs at National
Bureau of Standards Dated: May 22, 1990
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
After careful review of its decision of April 13, 1990 in this
matter, it is the unanimous decision of the Board that the motion
for reconsideration is denied. It is the judgment of the Board
based upon the briefs and record of the case, and upon the
testimony received in oral argument of September 19, 1989, that the
assistant test technician classification which was denied by the
Administrator but granted by this Board in its decision of April
13, 1990, was appropriately allowed.
The Board concludes that the assistant test technician
classification meets all criteria set forth in 29 CFR
5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A) for approval. The work involves handling
extremely hazardous, toxic and carcinogenic materials, including
polychlorinated biphenyls or "PCB's". Such work requires exacting
qualifications and experience for promotion from assistant to test
technician. While it is most logical to conclude that journeymen in
virtually every instance are qualified to perform the work of their
assistants, it is [1]
~2
[2] illogical to assume the reverse. The Board concludes that the
work of the assistant test technicians herein is not performed by
test technicians, and thus the first criteria for approval of a
conforming classification pursuant to 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A), was met.
The Board also concludes that this additional classification
". . . is utilized in the area by the construction industry", and
that the proposed wage rate of 90% of that of test technician
". . . bears a reasonable relationship to the wage rates contained
in the wage determination." The three criteria for conformance
required pursuant to 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A) have been met. See
M.A. Mortenson Company, WAB Case No. 87-50, Feb. 17, 1989.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
- - - -
Member Rothman, concurring:
I concur in the decision to dismiss the motion for
reconsideration. In its decision of April 13, 1990, the Board
concluded that the Davis-Bacon wage determination which had been
based upon the locally negotiated wage rates should have taken into
account a subclassification for Assistant Test Technician. This
classification was added to the locally negotiated agreement by a
national agreement between the International Union and employers
engaged in this segment of the construction industry. Together the
two agreements produced the negotiated wages and the
classifications [2]
~3
[3] applicable in the locality. The Administrator having used
negotiated wages to formulate the Davis-Bacon wage predetermination
should have used the entire negotiated arrangement. Under these
circumstances the Board concluded that the inclusion of Assistant
Test Technician in the Davis-Bacon wage schedule was appropriate.
The decision of April 13, 1990, makes this point clear and requires
no reconsideration.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger, Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [3]
