CCASE:
BUFFALO BLDG. CONST.
DDATE:
19910730
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of:
JOHN J. RAY WAB Case No. 91-20
BUFFALO BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES
DEPARTMENT (AFL-CIO)
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 petition
of the above-captioned parties (hereinafter "Buffalo Building
Trades" or "Petitioners"), seeking a review on the merits of the
question of Davis-Bacon coverage of an agreement by the General
Services Administration ("GSA") with Woodfield Chapin Associates
for the construction and lease of office space outside of Buffalo,
New York. The Buffalo Building Trades twice requested the Wage and
Hour Division to issue a wage determination applicable to the
project. The Wage and Hour Division has yet to issue the
determination or decide the Davis-Bacon coverage issue because GSA
has yet to respond to their request for information.
Counsel for the Administrator seeks to dismiss the petition on
two bases: first that Petitioner has no standing to seek review;
and second, that the matter is not yet ripe for review in light of
the absence of a final decision. For the reasons contained herein,
the Board disagrees with the Administrator on the [1]
~2
[2]
standing question, but agrees that the matter is not ripe for review.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice.
Applying the principles enunciated in Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490 (1975), the Solicitor argues that Petitioners does not
allege a specific injury to itself or to its members which a
decision of the Board could remedy. This argument overlooks two
important factors: first, administrative agencies like the Board
may hear issues raised by parties that would lack standing to
bring the same issue before a federal court. Secondly, issues such
as Davis-Bacon coverage and applicable wage rates have an ongoing
future impact on organizations such as the Buffalo Building Trades.
Indeed, Petitioner is uniquely situated to raise and address these
questions. See "Iron Worker I", WAB Case No. 90-26 (July 30,
1991). Accordingly, the Board finds that the Petitioner would
have standing to appeal a Wage and Hour decision as to these
questions.
This, however, begs the second question. The Wage and Hour
Division, through no apparent fault of its own, has yet to make a
decision. As the Board sees no indication of unwarranted delay, it
will respect the right of the Wage and Hour Division to make a
decision in the first instance. There being no decision before the
Board which can be reviewed, the Solicitor's motion to dismiss for
lack of ripeness is granted.
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 [2]
