RAY PETTY d/b/a PROFESSIONAL DRYWALL SERVICES, WAB No. 91-32
(WAB Oct. 25, 1991)
CCASE:
RAY PETTY d/b/a PROFESSIONAL
DDATE:
19911025
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of:
RAY PETTY d/b/a PROFESSIONAL WAB Case No. 91-32
DRYWALL SERVICES
BEFORE: Charles E. Shearer, Jr., Chairman
Ruth E. Peters, Member
Patrick J. O'Brien, Member
DATED: October 25, 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 for lack of ripeness. For the reasons contained
herein, the motion is granted and the petition is
dismissed without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Ray Petty d/b/a Professional Drywall
Services ("Petty") served as a drywall subcontractor on
a project for the Department of Energy ("DOE") in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. In the course of performing that
contract, Petty employed a number of workers under the
allegedly proper classifications of carpenters and "Group
II laborers." A DOE compliance officer reclassified a
number of these employees into higher wage categories.
Petty agrees with some of the reclassification, but
disputes the rest. His petition asks the Board to [1]
~2
[2]
overrule the DOE classification in dispute and to order
the payment of the contract proceeds being withheld
pending the complete resolution of the dispute. The
counsel for the Acting Administrator argues that this
matter is not ripe for Board review.
II. DISCUSSION
29 C.F.R. 7.9 provides in pertinent part:
Any party or aggrieved person shall
have a right to file a petition for
review with the Board . . . from any
final decision in any agency action
under part 1, 3, or 5 of this subtitle.
As recently noted in Aleutian Constructors, WAB Case
No. 90-11 (April 1, 1991), the Wage and Hour Division
should ordinarily decide issues of this nature prior to
a Board proceeding. The counsel for the Wage and Hour
Division states that this matter has not been referred by
DOE, and hence there is no final decision to review.
There is nothing in the Petition for Review to the
contrary, nor does Petty allege any concrete harm that
would justify Board intervention at this time.
In sum, Petty's petition is premature. Accordingly,
the petition is dismissed without prejudice.
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]
