|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
DDATE:
19910730
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of:
Appeal of Decision of the
Acting Administrator in WAB Case No. 90-26
Connection with The
Establishment of an Additional
Classification to Project Decision
No. 86-VA-0144, Virginia
("Iron Workers I")
BEFORE: Charles E. Shearer, Jr., Chairman
Ruth E. Peters, Member
Patrick J. O'Brien, Member
DATED: July 30, 1991
DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
This matter is before the Wage Appeals Board on the motion of
the counsel for the Acting Administrator to dismiss a petition of
the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers ("Iron Workers" or "Union") for lack of standing. For
the reasons contained herein, that motion is denied. [1]
~2
[2] I. BACKGROUND
The Iron Workers filed a petition for review of a January 10,
1990 determination by the Acting Administrator which approved
inclusion of an additional classification ("Concrete Erectors,
Laborers") in the wage determination applicable to construction at
Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Virginia. The project includes
the installation of precast concrete planks, work which is
allegedly performed by the Iron Workers' trade.
Counsel for the Wage and Hour Division contends that the Union
has no standing to seek review of the determination because it is
neither an interested party nor an aggrieved person with respect to
that ruling. The argument is predicated on the claim that the Iron
Workers did not allege specific harm to itself (as an organization)
or to its members. By application of the principles enunciated in
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), the Solicitor argues that the
Iron Workers must claim a specific harm and a direct, tangible
benefit from redress of that injury.
The Iron Workers' union contends that local members may have
been denied employment opportunities otherwise available had a
different classification been utilized. Furthermore, the addition
of the classification could affect future area wage rate surveys.
Conversely, a ruling by the Wage Appeals Board that the work should
have been compensated at or near the Iron Workers' rate would have
a tangible benefit to the union membership.
II. DISCUSSION
Administrative reviews such as that presently before the Board
are not Article III proceedings to which constitutional standing
requirements apply. It is well recognized that agencies may hear
actions brought by parties who might lack standing to contest the
same issues in a federal court. See Garden v. F.C.C., 530
F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Furthermore, the Board's
responsibility to act as the representative of the Secretary of
Labor in review of Wage and Hour Division determinations arising
under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts mitigates against an overly
restrictive view of standing. Organizations such as labor unions
and employer groups are uniquely qualified to advise the
Board as to the proper administration of the Acts.
In this case the Iron Workers are affected by the outcome of
the Wage and Hour determination in both the short and the long
term. In the short term, union members would be affected by both
the availability of work as well as the wage rate at which that
work would be performed, assuming the Union's claim of jurisdiction
has merit. That claim of jurisdiction ought to be aerated in
full. [2]
~3
[3] In the long run, the addition of an additional work
classification would have a potential effect on future bid
solicitations. It is inconceivable that an organization
representing the workers potentially affected -- or the contractors
potentially affected -- would not have the right to participate in
that outcome.
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
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]
]]>
|
