skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
September 23, 2008         DOL Home > OALJ Home > USDOL/OALJ Reporter
USDOL/OALJ Reporter

L. P. CAVETT CO., WAB No. 89-15 (WAB May 31, 1991)


CCASE: L. P. CAVETT COMPANY DDATE: 19910531 TTEXT: ~1 [1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WASHINGTON, D. C. In the Matter of: L. P. CAVETT COMPANY GEORGE ST. JOHN'S TRUCKING WAB Case No. 89-15 Contract No. R-15309 Resurfacing of State Road 3 Rush County, Indiana BEFORE: Charles E. Shearer, Jr., Chairman Ruth E. Peters, Member Patrick J. O'Brien, Member DATED: May 31, 1991 DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD This matter is before the Wage Appeals Board on the petition of L. P. Cavett Company ("Cavett"), seeking review of a ruling of the Wage and Hour Administrator dated May 16, 1989, wherein it was determined that the prevailing wage requirements of Davis-Bacon Related Acts ("DBRA") apply to the employees of an independent trucking company hauling asphalt to the construction project. Cavett claims that the employees of the trucking company are not subject to the DBRA, and that the back wage assessment is time-barred by operation of the Portal-to-Portal Act. For the reasons contained herein, the Administrator's ruling is affirmed. [1] ~2 [2] I. BACKGROUND Cavett was the prime contractor on Indiana Department of Highways Contract No. R-15309, which included two Federal Highway Administration projects and contained prevailing wage and labor standards provisions (Record, Tab J; hereinafter, "Contract"). The contract required Cavett "to furnish all materials, equipment, and labor necessary, and to fully construct the work." The contract further stated: Contractors or subcontractors who enter into lease or rental agreements for equipment with operators and/or for trucks with drivers, shall insure that properly certified payrolls are submitted for all equipment operators and/or truck drivers that perform work on this contract. This payroll must verify that these employees have been paid not less that the predetermined wage rate for the classification of work as set out elsewhere in this contract. The contract was awarded to Cavett on June 10, 1985; on June 12, 1985, a preconstruction conference was held wherein the contract and its requirements were discussed in detail. Indeed, Cavett went through numerous contract provisions to resolve any ambiguities. Cavett entered into an agreement with the George St. John's Trucking Company ("St. John's") to haul materials, supplies, and equipment. (Record, Tab P). The Solicitor's Office, in its statement of facts, identifies this document, clearly labeled "Agreement," as a subcontract. This contract did not contain Davis-Bacon labor standards provisions, and it is undisputed that the truck drivers working for St. John's were not paid prevailing wages or proper overtime. The Administrator determined that Cavett, as prime contractor, was liable for back wages in the amount of $11,202.10. II. DISCUSSION Cavett disputes the back wage determination because it alleges that St. John's truck drivers were the employees of an independent contractor. The facts of the case before the Board would support the argument that the employees of St. John's Trucking were not employed on the site of the work. See Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO v. Department of Labor, Wage Appeals Board ("Midway Excavators"), No. 90-5341 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 1991). Were the contract vague, Midway Excavators might be controlling. However, the contract required Cavett to supply materials for the highway project, and to guarantee the payment of prevailing wages to truck drivers so employed (be they owner-operators or employees of independent firms). As a [2] ~3 [3] matter of contractual obligation, St. John's employees were entitled to the wages specified in the contract. Finally, Cavett contends that the back wage determination is barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. [sec] 255. It is well settled that the Portal-to-Portal time limitation does not apply to DBRA cases. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied and the Administrator's ruling is affirmed. BY ORDER OF THE BOARD: Charles E. Shearer, Jr., Chairman Ruth E. Peters, Member Patrick J. O'Brien, Member _______________________________ Gerald F. Krizan, Esq. Executive Secretary [3]



Phone Numbers