|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
MAP MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
DDATE:
19910313
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of:
MAP MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION WAB Case No. 90-33
COMPANY, INC. and
NIGEL PARKINSON, President
BEFORE: Charles E. Shearer, Jr., Chairman
Ruth E. Peters, Member
Patrick J. O'Brien, Member
DATED: March 13, 1991
DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
This case is before the Wage Appeals Board on the petition of
Map Maintenance and Construction Company, Inc. and Nigel Parkinson,
president (collectively, "Petitioners" or "Map"). Petitioners seek
review of the July 6, 1990 decision and order (Attachment) of
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Julius A. Johnson, recommending
debarment of Map and Parkinson for disregarding their obligations
to employees under the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. [sec] 276a et
seq.). [1]
~2
[2] This matter involved Map's performance on three separate
contracts with the Navy, Army and Air Force. After a hearing, the
ALJ recommended that Map and Parkinson be debarred for three years
pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Davis-Bacon Act (ALJ's decision and
order ("ALJD") at 12-13). The ALJ concluded that misclassification
and underpayment of Map's employees had been established through
uncontroverted evidence and testimony, and that the petitioners had
also falsified the certified payrolls (Id. at 12). The ALJ further
concluded that Map's violations of the Davis-Bacon Act were
"willful, consistent and substantial," and were not de minimis
(Id.). The ALJ also observed that the factors listed in 29 C.F.R.
5.12(c) regarding mitigation of the length of the debarment period
apply only to debarment for violations of the Davis-Bacon Related
Acts and not, as here, to debarment under the Davis-Bacon Act
itself (Id.).
With respect to debarment of Parkinson, the ALJ rejected the
argument that Parkinson should not be debarred because a bookkeeper
had completed the payroll records (ALJD at 11-12). The ALJ
observed that Board precedent does not permit a contractor to avoid
debarment by claiming that a clerical employee erred (Id. at 11).
Furthermore, the ALJ stated, Parkinson controlled the company's
employment practices, and the company bookkeeper was at all times
subject to Parkinson's instructions (Id. at 11-12).
On review of the record, the Board concludes that the ALJ's
decision and order is supported by reliable and probative evidence
(29 C.F.R. 6.33(b)(1)), and is consistent with applicable legal
principles. Accordingly, the decision and order of the ALJ is
affirmed. The petition for review is denied.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD:
[MEMBERS] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY] [2]
]]>
|
