EARLY & SONS, INC., 1985-DBA-140 (ALJ Aug. 5, 1986)
CCASE:
EARLY & SONS
DDATE:
19860805
TTEXT:
~1
[1]-[86-25 ATTACHMENT]
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
John W. McCormack Post Office
and Courthouse
Room 408
Boston, Massachusetts
In the Matter of:
Proposed debarment for labor
standards violations by:
EARLY & SONS, INC.
Prime Contractor
RICHARD P. EARLY, SR., President Case No.: 85-DBA-140
With respect to laborers and
mechanics employed by them under
Department of Housing and Urban
Development Contracts No.
FY-79-3, improvements to Brad-
ford Neighborhood, and FY-78-7,
Rosemont Sanitary Sewer Project
both in Haverhill, Massachusetts
Appearances: David Baskin, Esq.
For Complainant, U.S. Department of Labor
Robert J. White, Esq.
For Respondents, Early & Sons, Inc.
and Richard P. Early, Sr.
Before: Anthony J. Iacobo
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION AND ORDER - ORDERING DEBARMENT
Procedural History
As a result of an investigation conducted by the Wage and
Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration, Early &
Sons, Inc., and its president and treasurer, Richard P. Early,
Sr., (Respondent) were charged with aggravated and willful
violations of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,
as amended, and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Acts) and sec. 5.12(a)(1) of regulations promulgated
thereunder. (42 U.S.C. 5310, 1440(g), (40 U.S.C. 327-332) and 20
C.F.R. Sec. 5.12(a)(1)). Respondent requested a hearing and an
Order of Reference was issued by the Assistant Administrator
referring this case to the office of Administrative [1]
~2
[2] Law Judges. A hearing was held in Boston, Massachusetts on
June
25 and 26, 1986, at which time the parties were present and
presented evidence and argument.
Preliminary Issues
The investigation revealed that certain employees of
Respondent were underpaid due to prevailing wage and overtime
violations. The total back wages were $13,201.74. This amount
was paid to the Department of Labor (Department) by Respondent on
condition that the payment "not be construed as an admission of
any violation." While the pro[f]ferred "Agreement for Compromise"
was not signed by a Department official, Respondent's check was
accepted, negotiated, and the amounts distributed to the
employees found to have been underpaid. In view of this action
by the Department, I am construing the negotiation of the check
as an acceptance of the agreement. In any event, Respondent, at
the hearing gave a perfectly rational and persuasive reason for
his failure to dispute this aspect of the case - the Federal
Bureau of Investigation had possession of employee records until
recently and Respondent was therefore unable to dispute the
accuracy of the Department's allegations, except for a few
instances where Mr. Early could rely on personal recollection.
Near the end of the hearing, counsel for the Department
moved that other members of the Early family, inasmuch as they,
in his view of the testimony, aided and abetted the aggravated
and willful violations of the Acts and regulations, should be
embraced in the instant proceeding as respondents and made the
subject of any order of debarment, citing Section 6.31 of the
regulations. 29 C.F.R. sec. 6.31. This section allows, in my
discretion, enlargement of the ambit of this proceeding, when
justice is served.
The motion is denied because justice is not served by
embracing individuals in an order who were never served notice
they were the subject of a proceeding. Further, the inclusion of
these individuals could not be reasonably construed as being
within the scope of the Order of Reference issued by the
Administrator. Lastly, the individuals' corporate and familial
relationship with Respondent was easily ascertainable prior to
the issuance of the Order of Reference and could easily have been
included therein. To embrace them in any order that may issue as
a result of a hearing at which they were neither present nor
represented would be wholly unfair.
Background of the Case
Respondent was the prime contractor in two projects falling
within the ambit of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act,
listed in 29 C.F.R. Sec. 5.1 and regulations promulgated [2]
~3
[3] thereunder. These Acts are so-called Davis Bacon Related Acts
(DBRA). The projects, both in Haverhill, Massachusetts, were
designated as the Bradford Neighborhood Project, (Bradford) and
the Rosemont Sanitary Sewer Project (Rosemont). A complaint was
received that certain payroll irregularities were being
intentionally perpetrated in violation of the aforesaid acts and
regulations. Specifically, employees were not being paid the
appropriate prevailing wage rate and appropriate increases were
not being paid for overtime. Respondent has been in business for
a number of years, has worked on a number of other projects
embraced by Davis[-]Bacon Related Acts, and has been the subject of
other investigations. As a result of this experience Respondent
had been instructed as to his responsibilities under the law.
Applicable Law and Regulations
The above-cited statutes are implemented by the Secretary's
regulations found in 29 C.F.R. Secs. 5 and 6. As here pertinent,
Sec. 5.12(a)(1) provides:
Whenever any contractor or subcontractor is
found by the Secretary of Labor to be in
aggravated or willful violation of the labor
standards provisions of any of the applicable
statutes listed in sec. 5.1 ... such
contractor or subcontractor ... shall be
ineligible for a period not to exceed 3 years
... to receive any contracts or subcontracts
subject to any of the statutes listed in
Sec. 5.1.
The above-specified statutes are listed in sec. 5.1.
Summary of the Evidence
Two of the Respondent's employees who were allegedly paid
wages lower than the prevailing wages in violation of the Act,
were present and testified. Mr. Robert Boggiatto testified that
he worked for Respondent on both the Rosemont and the Bradford
projects. He was paid $6.00 per hour. He was aware they were
Federal projects and that he should be receiving higher wages.
He explained that he was a hemophiliac and has been receiving
Social Security Disability benefits for many years, antedating
the period here at issue. His father, Joseph, is a friend of
Mr. Early and through his intervention, he was able to obtain
work to help support himself, his wife and five children. The
work was to be on a part-time basis but evolved into
substantially full-time work. He worked as a truck driver and
equipment operator. He has received back pay from the
settlement, although he was advised by his father to return the [3]
~4
[4] money to Respondent. (There is no evidence that this advice
was prompted by any action on Respondent's part. I am assuming
that this advice was given by an individual who believed that
Robert Boggiatto in receiving the money was "overreaching", given
the circumstances of his employment.) The witness' testimony was
vague, at times, which he stated was due to a recent head
injury. He refreshed his recollection with a review of a written
statement he had signed in conjunction with a Department
investigation of Respondent's operation. CX 2. His testimony
was credible and, with the aid of the signed statement, reliable.
Mr. Anthony D. Boggiatto, son of Robert, was also present
and testified. He was to work as a yard boy but, in fact, Mr.
Louie Bianco, the general superintendent for Respondent, would
assign him to various projects including the Rosemont and
Bradford projects. There he would perform whatever tasks he was
given, including operating various equipment such as trucks,
backhoes and the like. He had noted on his time card he was
working on a federal project and that he expected to be paid
accordingly, but was told by Stephen Early, one of Respondent's
sons, to refrain from doing so. He was also told by his father,
who was relaying a message from Mr. Bianco to stop insisting on
the federally mandated payscale or risk dismissal. Bianco had
also told him not to return a Department questionnaire or risk
being fired. Anthony Boggiatto was seventeen years old in the
summer of 1981, when he was working for Early. He allegedly
spoke with co-workers on the federal projects who were also not
getting the prescribed wage.
Ms. Patricia Kelleher had worked for Respondent, as a
bookkeeper, from the fall of 1976 to June 25, 1982. In addition
to performing general office work, she prepared the certified
payroll report - required of contractors and sub-contractors
performing work projects embraced in DBRA. As here pertinent,
the so-called Bradford and Rosemont projects were jobs requiring
such reports and she certified their correctness. During the
slow or winter season she performed all or nearly all of the
Early payroll functions. During the mild weather months the
payroll was usually prepared by others, although she would fill
in from time to time. She also paid bills, answered the
telephone and performed other similar office duties. As here
pertinent, she testified that Early kept two separate sets of
records for payroll purposes. Mr. Early and the general
superintendent, Louis Bianco, would review various payroll
records and place on 5" x 8" "scratch paper" the names of persons
designated to receive the "federal wage," meaning the wage levels
mandated by the federal projects contracts. From these names the
certified federal payroll report would be prepared, usually by
another bookkeeper, and then turned over to her for
certification. The remaining employees would be listed on a [4]
~5
[5] regular payroll sheet from data taken from the time cards. She
demonstrated, by comparing the names listed in the Foreman's
Daily Reports of employees actually working on the Rosemont and
Bradford projects for four days of the week of August 24-30,
1981, with the names listed in the certified payrolls for the
same period, that certain persons (e.g. Anthony and Robert
Boggiatto and a Mr. Descoteaux) listed in the former reports were
not contained in the latter. Furthermore, the foreman's reports
indicated that in such cases the employees were not paid the
federally mandated hourly wage. CX 1. This was cited as typical
of the means employed by Respondent to file false information in
federally sponsored projects during 1980-1982, in contravention
of the DBRA. She also noted that whenever workers would note on
their time cards that they worked on federal projects she would
be told by Early to erase such references. In explaining office
practices generally, she testified that regular payroll checks
(with appropriate tax deductions and the like) were yellow in
color. Green - or "corporate" checks were used to reimburse
foreman for various out of pocket expenses and to make payments
of wages which were not in accordance with the federal wage scale
for work performed in federally sponsored projects and/or
instances where the usual withholdings were not made. She
testified that at one point she overheard Early's accountant,
Mr. Chris Henry, complaining because the so-called "under the
table" use of green checks was getting out of hand. She,
herself, was paid with one yellow and one green check. Although
both represented wages for services, the green represented "under
the table" payments.
Ms. Kelleher also testified about the circumstances which
led to her acknowledged action of reporting the alleged
violations by Early to the Department. It appears that her son,
Michael Bakanoski, whom she charges was fathered by Mr. Early,
was leaving Early's employ and was wrongfully being deprived, in
her view, of two weeks vacation pay. She gave Early an ultimatum
and thereafter resigned when her demands were not satisfied.
Prior to resigning she acknowledged, as here pertinent, using
without authority two corporate checks, one of which had been
signed by Early en blanc for other purposes, to pay her son the
aforesaid two weeks vacation pay of $460.00 and to deposit
$3,000.00 with a financial service for Michael's benefits because
she believed he had it coming to him. Early discovered these
unauthorized actions in time to stop payment. Nevertheless, the
charges and counter charges resulted in one civil and one
criminal action. In another action taken by Ms. Kelleher, which
she admitted, she altered payroll records to reflect what she, in
fact, was being paid (a combination of the yellow and green
checks) so as to increase her unemployment benefits.[5]
~6
[6] She also admitted threatening Mr. Early with the destruction
of his business if he did not capitulate to her demands in behalf
of her son and taking some records with her upon her departure.
She denies breaking and entering into the offices at a later
time.
Mr. Alfred Hammond, a compliance officer with the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department investigated the complaint from
Ms. Kelleher involving Respondent. His role is to ascertain
whether companies, such as Respondent are in compliance with the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Davis[-]Bacon Act and the DBRA. Upon
contacting Respondent's office he learned that all their records
were in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He
then went to their Lawrence, Massachusetts, field office and
there reviewed the certified payroll reports, payroll journals
and the foreman's reports. During the 1980-1982 period he noted
that Early was involved in eight to ten different projects,
including some that were State funded and others which were
completed. Included in the group were the Rosemont and Bradford
projects involved herein. He then compared the names of workers
reported in the foreman's reports as working on federal projects
with the payroll records and the amounts actually paid those
workers. By comparing the wages actually paid with those that
should have been paid under the wage determinations specified in
the project contracts to which the Respondent agreed to adhere,
and applying the number of hours worked on the federal project,
he was able to calculate the underpayments. He subsequently
discussed the results with Early. As a result of the discussion
several names were removed because Early pointed out that the
named individuals were either not mechanics or laborers embraced
in the contract or were otherwise not covered. From these
discussions he believed Mr. Early had a good grasp of the
company's operations and the identity of his employees. He noted
that Respondent had been the subject of other investigations
involving incorrect payments to employees in federally financed
projects, as a result of which Early's responsibilities under
Davi[s-]Bacon and DBRA were reviewed. This later point, Mr.
Early's pre-existing knowledge of his responsibilities, was
reinforced by the supporting testimony of Mr. Joseph DiJulia, the
Assistant Area Director of the Wage and Hour Division Boston Area
Office, who also had had dealings with Early in the past. Mr.
Early, for his part, admitted the earlier instances of under-
payments and recalled that appropriate supplemental payments were
made.
Testimony of Richard P. Early, Sr.
Mr. Richard P. Early, Sr. is President and Treasurer of
Early & Sons, Incorporated. He founded the company in 1960 and
incorporated in 1972. He is the sole stockholder and Director.
His wife, Dorothy, is the secretary of the corporation. She [6]
~7
[7] oversees the office staff and office operations. The company's
estimates on bids for contracts are usually computed by
Respondent's son, Stephen. Another son, Richard, Jr., works for
the company as a supervisor/administrator. The company performs
some of the work itself and subcontracts the balance. In the two
projects at bar Early & Sons, Inc., installed sewer pipe. The
paving was subcontracted to another company. Louie Bianco was
the general superintendent for Early and coordinated the foremen
who ran the various projects in which Early was engaged. Of the
two projects at bar, George Hanna "ran" the Bradford job which
was started in the Spring of 1981 and Bill DeRoche "ran" the
Rosemont job, which was begun in the fall of 1980. The certified
federal payrolls were prepared by Patricia (Bakanoski) Kelleher,
derived from foreman's reports and time cards. Each employee
would turn in his own time card at the office on Monday mornings
or they would be brought in by the foremen. He specifically
denied telling Kelleher who was or was not to be included in the
certified payroll. He acknowledged having been briefed by Mr.
Hammond of the Labor Department about the requirements of the
Davis[-]Bacon and related acts. He also acknowledged paying back
wages of approximately $13,000 as a result of the instant
investigation of violations of DBRA. It was brought out that
during the time these projects were underway Early employed in
excess of 100 persons and owned about 80 pieces of heavy
equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks. The payroll
for the 1980-1982 period totalled $1.5 million. Furthermore,
there were several private projects going on simultaneously, one
was a privately funded sewer and water job, similar to the
federal project which Early described as being "on Rosemont
Street." TR 241. This was later noted to be not literally
correct; the street on which the work was performed was named
Alvanos Drive, an "U-shaped" street which began and ended on
Rosemont Street. TR 243. The crews working each job would be
interchanged. The men had two timecards, "federal" and regular.
Any state sponsored work performed by an employee would be noted
on his regular timecard. The timecards would be turned in by the
employees on Monday mornings in the office from which Ms.
Kelleher would compile the payroll. He denied fabricating a list
of names for federal payroll reporting purposes which did not
accurately reflect the names of those individuals known to be
engaged in federal projects. He also denied any knowledge of
such a scheme being perpetrated by his general superintendent,
Louie Bianco. TR 251. He also denied instructing Kelleher to
remove the names of people who should otherwise be on the
"federal payroll." Specifically, he was aware of a complaint by
one fellow, named Harris, who complained and was paid the
appropriate rate. He also acknowledged hiring Robert Boggiatto,
who was supposed to pickup and deliver heavy equipment, by truck,
from one job site to another or to the company's yard. Boggiatto
often used his father's truck to haul the equipment, using [7]
~8
[8] Early's low bed trailer. He denied hiring Robert Boggiatto to
operate equipment at job sites. Early noted, however, that he
was in overall charge of the company's affairs, dealing primarily
with financing, purchasing of equipment and the like. He would
visit a project several times during its course of construction
but everyday responsibilities in assigning personnel would be in
the hands of the general superintendent and the various foremen
at the job sites. Personnel would be shifted from site to site
as the needs of the jobs required.
Thus, the implication is that sometimes the time cards did
not accurately reflect what job assignments may have been made by
foremen at the site. As for the office operations, he described
Patricia Kelleher as someone he knew from "high school days",
whom he hired in 1977 and in 1980-1981 had advanced to the
position of being "in charge of the entire payroll" and "helping
coordinating the office and taking care of the other girl...."
TR 261. Mr. Early essentially corroborated Ms. Kelleher's story
that their differences arose over vacation pay allegedly due
Michael Bakanoski. He also noted that it was not until the
afternoon of June 25, 1982, the last day of Ms. Kelleher's
employment, that he and Mrs. Early uncovered irregularities
leading to the discovery of the unauthorized check to the
investment firm, in the amount of $3000.00, to Michael Bakanoski
for $460.00, and to a company called Jet Marketing Company, in
the amount of $480.00. This latter was allegedly an "account
that Patty (Kelleher) had started for either herself or her son."
TR 267. He later discovered many office records and stationery
stolen in a break-in of the office during that weekend. He was
later contacted by Kelleher who allegedly demanded $30,000 in
return for the documents or she would turn them over to various
authorities. He reported this to the Haverhill Police but no
search warrant was issued to recover the records which Early
believes were stolen by Kelleher. He essentially confirmed that
a number of investigations were commenced into his operations,
resulting from Kelleher's filing of complaints with various
agencies. At some point the FBI, armed with a search warrant,
took every remaining available office record, the last of which
was just recently returned, in June 1986.
From all this, it was brought out that except for some
problems with the Division of Employment Security, allegedly
stemming from a false claim filed by Kelleher, Early has not been
indicted for any wrongdoing. He admitted on cross-examination,
however, pleading guilty to one misdemeanor count for failure to
pay withholding taxes to the State of Massachusetts and being
fined $7500.00. He confirmed that his wife filed a complaint
against Michael Bakanoski, who allegedly tried to run her off the
road, but otherwise denied ever threatening or harassing Kelleher.
He denied being the father of Michael and alleged that [8]
~9
[9] these charges had been made in the past against him and, at
other times, two other men. He admitted paying the back pay
allegedly due certain employees because of work performed on the
Bradford and Rosemont projects, resulting from Hammond's
investigation, but this was allegedly due in large measure by
Respondent's lack of records (they had been seized by the FBI) to
contest the Department's findings at the time.
In addressing himself to the so-called Foreman's Reports,
Mr. Early explained that they had been set in place by Bianco as
a means of measuring the cost of performing a certain project to
see if the company is operating profitab[ly], that is, within
the amount bid. They were never intended to be payroll records,
as such. Lastly, turning to the hiring of Anthony Boggiatto,
Early testified that the young man was hired as a yard boy, at
the request of his grandfather. While it was possible he worked
on a job site, he was not supposed to. Mr. Early, again, denied
conducting his business in such a manner as to intentionally
avoid his responsibilities under the DBRA.
Mr. R. Christopher Henry, a certified public accountant,
testified that he has been retained in that capacity by Early
since the spring of 1977. His firm is retained to issue external
financial statements to Early's banks and bonding companies and
to prepare the company's tax returns. He is familiar with the
bookkeeping and business records system in effect at Respondent's
office in 1980-1982. Specifically, he is familiar with the
means by which payroll records are kept. Separate timecards were
kept and separate payroll checks were issued to employees for
work performed in private and federal projects. Thus, an
individual who worked on both during the pay period would receive
two checks. He understood the bookkeeper to generate the payroll
by referring to timecards and cross referencing them "to the day
book, the foremen's reports," or by personally checking by radio
with the foreman for any apparent discrepancy. The responsibility
was on the bookkeeper to check out any discrepancy. He identified
Ms. Kelleher as the principal bookkeeper and the one with whom he
would consult. He corroborated Early's testimony that the company
had no records with which to dispute Mr. Hammond's calculations
regarding underpayments to various employees who had allegedly
worked on federally sponsored projects. He also disputed Ms
Kelleher's assertion that he, Henry, was aware of and part of the
scheme to shield Respondent's actual business transactions from the
appropriate authorities.
Ms. Barbara Gilbert, an employee of the City of Haverhill's
Public Works Department for many years, also testified. She is
familiar with both Mr. Early and his company and some of its
employees in her capacity as the issuer of street excavation
permits. In this fashion she came to know Ms. Kelleher and to [9]
~10
[10] exchange social pleasantries. In June 1982 she learned from
Kelleher that she had given her two weeks' notice and was
quitting the Early firm. On the last day of Kelleher's
employment Gilbert had a brief conversation with Kelleher and
learned of Mr. and Mrs. Early's luncheon invitation to Kelleher.
About one week later Ms. Gilbert received a call from Kelleher at
which time Kelleher told her she had taken various records from
the Early office with which she was going to drive Early out of
business by filing charges with officials at various levels of
government. She also stated she was demanding $30,000.00 from
Early as "back child support." TR 349.
Closing Arguments of the Parties
The Department's position is, essentially, that Mr. Richard
Early, Sr. and, by virtue of his control, Early & Sons, Inc.,
intentionally put into place a scheme whereby certain employees
would be placed to work on federally sponsored projects but be
intentionally paid less than the mandated wage. In contrast,
Respondent argues that the demonstrated underpayments were of a
trivial amount in comparison to Respondent's overall business
volume. Thus, whatever violations may have been demonstrated
were of an inadvertent nature. Further, the direct
responsibility for uncovering even these inadvertent errors
rested with Ms. Patricia Kelleher. Respondent argues that she has
admitted to attempting to misappropriate funds and has been shown
to be embarked on a course of discrediting or destroying Mr.
Early and his business in retaliation for perceived wrongs.
Evaluation and Conclusions
My review of the evidence requires the conclusion that
Respondent, both Richard P. Early, Sr., as an individual, and
Early & Sons, Inc., as a corporate entity, have willfully and
aggravatedly violated the DBRA. The corporation is totally
controlled by Mr. Early. While he may not be in touch with the
details of the company's business at every moment of every day,
it is clear that he has such total control, as the president,
treasurer, and sole director, that he must bear responsibility
for the acts of all of the corporation[']s subordinate officials.
Further, it is clear that he would be privy to and have to have
generated the illegal scheme of paying individuals working on
federal projects less than the wage mandated by law and which he
and the corporation agreed to pay at the time they entered into
the contracts for the two respective projects.
In reaching the foregoing conclusion, I am not necessarily
concluding that the practice is as widespread as the Department
has alleged. The credibility of Respondent's chief accuser
leaves a great deal to be desired. She admits participating in
the scheme of illicit activity, attempting to embezzle funds, [10]
~11
[11] participating in a personal endeavor of avoiding tax liability
and revealing all this to authorities, not to assuage her
conscience, but to satisfy a personal vendetta. Furthermore, the
testimony of Ms. Gilbert, corroborating that of Mr. Early,
suggests that Kelleher was attempting to blackmail Early for
personal profit. Nevertheless, the testimony of Ms. Gilbert does
not suggest to me that Kelleher was intending to lie to achieve
her ends. She was merely prepared "to tell all." Therefore, as
a result of these qualms regarding the reliability of Kelleher's
testimony, I am inclined to accept those portions of her
testimony regarding the extent of Early's transgressions
supported by Robert and Anthony Boggiatto. Robert Boggiatto's
testimony was candid and, as supported by the written statement
(CX 2) was reliable and persuasive. Anthony's testimony was very
impressive for its spontaneity and credibility. Their testimony
jibed with Hammond's and Kelleher's. While the payroll may have
been made up from the time cards as a regular business practice,
the Foreman's Daily Reports were, in my view of the testimony, a
reliable cross-check on the accuracy of the payroll figures.
They clearly show that certain individuals who failed to appear
on the certified federal payroll for a specific period, were
reported by the job foreman as working on the federal projects
during that time. An attempt was made by Respondent to explain
away disparities by showing there was opportunity for confusion
between the Rosemont and Alvanos projects which were similar in
nature and physically adjacent to each other. The fact remains
that the Boggiattos were quite clear where they were working.
They were reported by the foremen as working on federal projects
but were not included in the federal payroll and testified []
convincingly that they did not receive the mandated wage. Anthony
stressed that he insisted on it and was told, in effect, to be
quiet or risk losing his job. Ms. Kelleher's testimony to the
effect that this was part of a deliberate illicit scheme is
corroborated. From the foregoing, it is clear that there was a
willful and aggravated violation of the DBRA. What remains
uncertain in my mind is the extent of the illicit scheme. The
evidence suggests that many other employees were similarly short
changed. Here, however, we get into less reliable evidence. Miss
Kelleher would, naturally, be inclined to exaggerate, given her
motives. Anthony Boggiatto tells us that other employees were
being shortchanged based on his talks with them. A comparison of
the foreman's reports and the certified payroll records tend to
support this. Early's testimony suggests "honest mistake." It is
corroborated by Henry's testimony. While Henry may be trying to
protect his client, his testimony indicates he is not a mere
employee of Respondent and thus not entirely in his economic
control. Because of these doubts regarding the extent of the
scheme, due to the paucity of the evidence and its inherent
weakness, I believe Respondents should be debarred for a period of
two years, one for each of the two individuals where the evidence
clearly shows a willful and aggravated violation of the contracts
to which Respondent subscribed. [11]
~12
[12] ORDER
It is therefore Ordered that respondents, Early & sons,
Inc. and Richard P. Early, Sr., and their successors and assigns
be hereby debarred for a period of two years for aggravated and
willful violations of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 5310, 1440(g) and the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 327, et seq, and
the Regulations issued thereunder, found at 29 C.F.R. Parts 5 and
6.
ANTHONY J. IACOBO
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: AUG 5 1986
Boston, Massachusetts
Notice to the Parties
This Decision and Order, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. sec. 6.34,
may be appealed by filing an appropriate timely pleading with the
Wage Appeals Board, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. [12]
