U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
September 12, 1958
Mr. C. W. Enfield
General Counsel
Bureau of Public Roads
Department of Commerce
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Enfield:
This is in further reply to your recent letter regarding
the applicability of Section 11$ of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1956 to owner-operators of trucks or other vehicles. You indicate
that the question generally is presented in instances where an in-
terstate project contractor or subcontractor employs individual
owner-operators of trucks or other vehicles instead of operating
his own equipment.
As you know, Section 115 of the Federal-.Aid Highway Act
of 1956 applies the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, to the initial
construction of the Interstate System. This Act provides in part
“that the contractor or his subcontractor shall pay all mechanics
and laborers . . . at wage rates not less than those stated in the
advertised specifications, regardless of any contractual relation-
ship which may be alleged to exist between the contractor or sub-
contractor and such laborers and mechanics . . ." The legislative
history of the Act indicates that Congress clearly intended by this
provision to require that all persons performing the duties of a
laborer or mechanic on a covered project be paid at least the pre-
determined minimum and that such requirement could not be abro-
gated by contract. In this connection see Senate Report No. 1155,
74th Congress, 1st Session.
The meaning of this provision is also discussed in U. S.
v. Landis and Young, l6  F. Supp. 832. La this case, the plaintiff
agreed to perform electrical work on a post office building for a
fixed price. Although he was paid the stipulated price, plaintiff
sued for an additional sum on the theory that he should have been
paid not less than the prevailing rate for electricians as required
by the Davis-Bacon Act. In allowing the claim, the court said that
"the object of this provision (the provision referred to above) was

















Mr. G. W. Enfield        Page 2
to require, as a matter of policy, the payment of wages according
to the scale named. If the electrical work could be contracted in
this manner so as to avoid liability by the principal contractor
and its bondsmen, there would be no reason why that of carpenters,
paper-hangers, plumbers, etc., could not have been done in the
same way, on such terms that the scales of wages for those crafts
could not possibly have been paid, resulting in a defeat of the
purposes of the agreement and the law under which that provision
was incorporated in the contract." Also of interest in connection
with this matter are Olano v..Leathers, 2 So. 2nd 486, Industrial
Indemnity Exchange v. Southard 147 S.W. 2nd 939; Kirk v. Yarmouth
Lime 15 A. 2nd 184; Southern Underwriters v. Samanie, 130 S.E.
2nd 1090;  McDaniel v. Federal Underwriters 2 So. 2nd 289; McKay
v. Crowell and Spencer Lumber Co., 189 So. 508.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is my opinion that indi-
vidual owner-operators of trucks or other equipment employed under
the circumstances set forth in your inquiry come within the purview
of the minimum wage provisions ed: Section 115 of the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1956.
Very truly yours,
Solicitor of Labor