U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Solicitor
Washington 25, D. C.
June 24, 1959
MEMORANDUM  # 13
To: AGENCIES ADMINISTERING STATUTES REFERRED TO IN 29
CFR, SUBTITLE A, PART 5.
From: Harold C. Nystrom
Deputy Solicitor of Labor
Subject: Opinions on application of the Davis-Bacon and related
Acts.
Enclosed with previous covering memoranda, copies
of opinions on the application of the Davis-Bacon and related
Acts were furnished you for information and guidance in your
Enforcement programs under those Acts.
We are now enclosing a copy of a June 18, 1959,
opinion on this same general subject which we are sure will
be of further assistance to you.
Enclosures





































10K
250 e (1)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Solicitor
Washington 25, D. C.
June 18, 1959
Mr. Clifton W. Enfield
General Counsel
Bureau of Public Roads
U. S. Department of Commerce
Washington 25, D. C.
Re: Your file 26-32
Dear Mr. Enfield:
This is in reply to your recent letter in which you
request supplemental information on a ruling issued by this
Department to the Corps of Engineers, ,Department of the Army,
on the subject of truck owner-operators. This ruling was cir-
cularized to all agencies by our memorandum dated February
4, 1959.
In our letter to the Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Department of the Army, we notified that agency, pursuant to Sec-
tion 5.11 of Regulations, Part 5 (29 CFR, Subtitle A), that in-
dividual truck owner-operators employed by a contractor or sub-
contractor on a covered project are employees within the meaning
of the Davis-Bacon Act and the Eight Hour Laws and are entitled
under the contract provisions to be compensated for all covered
hours worked, at the applicable truck drivers' rate, This com-
pensation is exclusive of any amounts due these employees for
equipment rental.
We further advised the Corps that where payments for
wages and rentals are commingled, it is necessary, in the enforce-
ment of the contract labor standards, to determine what part of
the payments constitutes wages and what part rental. We suggested
in our letter, that this may be accomplished by determining, through
an area practice survey, the reasonable going rate for the rental
of such equipment. This amount, computed on a workweek basis,
would be deducted from the total weekly payments leaving the dif-
ference as wages. The hourly wage would be the quotient of the
number of hours worked divided into the difference. In this con-
nection, it should be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that the actual rental and a reasonable rental are the
same. Cf. Palmer v. Conn. R. Co. 311 U. S. 544 (1940).















Mr. Clifton W. Enfield     Page 2
Referring to this September 2, 1958, ruling to the
Corps of Engineers, you have requested clarification of the
mechanics of complying with this decision, asking, for example,
whether separate payrolls should be required covering rental
only or whether a rental addendum to the certified payrolls
should be required.
Since the agency primarily charged with the enforce-
ment responsibility must, in owner-operator situations, be in
a position to determine from a review of the submitted payrolls
whether the contract labor requirements have been met, it would
appear to us that the contractor would be required, in some ac-
ceptable manner, to indicate on his submitted payrolls, not only
the amounts paid as wages, but also the agreement regarding rental
and the total amounts so paid. We would not bind the contractor
to any standard form for showing such information, although it
would appear best to simply footnote the wage .entries and specify
in such footnote the information required. If, as we said in
our letter to the Corps, the compliance officer determines from
his knowledge of the general area practice and from discussion
with the contractor and owner-operators that the sum paid as
rental represents a reasonable going rental rate, a comparison
of the balance shown as wages with the hours worked and appli-
cable hourly rate will readily establish whether the contract
labor requirements have been met.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter,
please let us know.
Very truly yours,
Stuart Rothman
Solicitor of Labor
/s/ By
Harold C. Nystrom
Deputy Solicitor