PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT CO., WAB No. 90-09 (WAB Mar. 29, 1991)
CCASE:
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
DDATE:
19910329
TTEXT:
~
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of:
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WAB Case No. 90-09
Prime Contractor
CORDOVA CONTRACTING, INC.
Subcontractor
BEFORE: Charles E. Shearer, Jr., Chairman
Ruth E. Peters, Member
Patrick J. O'Brien, Member
DATED: March 29, 1991
DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
This case addresses the question of the contents of petitions
to the Wage Appeals Board from decisions generally and from Wage
and Hour rulings specifically. It is before the Wage Appeals Board
on the five-part petition of Phoenix Development Company
(hereinafter "Phoenix") from a Wage and Hour ruling finding
Phoenix, as general contractor, liable for back wages due to the
employees of Cordova Contracting, its subcontractor.
The petition in this case: 1) denies knowledge of certain
telephone conversations referred to in a letter from the
Administrator dated September 18, 1989; 2) alleges that Cordova,
not Phoenix, was the prime contractor; 3) alleges [1]
~2
[2] that Phoenix was not in a position to manage Cordova's employees; 4)
alleges that Phoenix was not liable "as the former owner of the
project"; and 5) states that Phoenix was "sabotaged" by the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and "badgered"
by the Department of Labor.
It is well settled that prime contractors
("owner[s]-developers" under the HUD contract at hand) are
responsible for the Davis-Bacon compliance of their subcontractors.
See 29 C.F.R. 5.5(a); Werzalit of America, Inc., WAB Case No. 85-19
(Apr. 7, 1986); Thomas J. Clements, Inc., WAB Case No. 84-12 (Jan.
25, 1985); and Bright Construction Co. & Trac Excavating Co., WAB
Case No. 85-03 (Oct. 1, 1985). The agreement between Phoenix and
the City of Omaha specifically required Phoenix to comply with
Davis-Bacon provisions on the project. See Record, Tab 7, pp. 1-5.
Hence, points two, three, and four in the petition are incorrect as
a matter of law.
Points one and five in the petition do not raise matters
cognizable on appeal. 29 C.F.R. 7.5 and 7.8(a), read together,
permit the Board to dismiss a petition in whole or in part where
that petition fails to state facts or law sufficient to make a
claim upon which relief can be granted. As points one and five
fail to do either, they are accordingly dismissed.
In short, the ruling of the Administrator is affirmed.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD: /s/ Charles E. Shearer, Jr., Chairman
Ruth E. Peters, Member, Patrick J. O'Brien, Member [2]
