BELL HELICOPTER FACILITIES II, WAB No. 66-04 (WAB Dec. 28, 1966)
CCASE:
BELL HELICOPTER FACILITIES
DDATE:
19661228
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
In the Matter of:
BELL HELICOPTER FACILITIES II WAB Case
The determination of the prevailing wage No. 66-04
rates applicable to the construction of an
assembly plant and related construction at Dated:
Bell Helicopter Facilities at Saginaw, December 28, 1966
Tarrant County, Texas
Before: Oscar S. Smith, Chairman, Clarence D. Barker and Stuart
Rothman, Members.
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a proceeding held in response to a petition, dated
November 14, 1966, filed by the Texas Heavy-Highway Chapter of the
Associated General Contractors of America for review of an opinion
of the Solicitor of Labor, dated October 18, 1966, upon remand to
him of the above-styled case on September 22, 1966.
In his opinion of October 18, 1966, the Solicitor found that
the record did not permit him to make specific findings as to how
the term "prevailing wage rate," as defined in section 1.2(a) of
the applicable rules of the Secretary of Labor, was applied to
prevailing wages found for carpenters, laborers, and operating
engineers engaged in paving work on the project involved.
The pertinent facts involved and the essential positions of
interested persons are set forth in our September 22, 1966
decision, and, therefore, need not be restated.
The Board has re-examined the record, and has given careful
consideration to the additional arguments presented by interested
persons on December 2, 1966, and to additional statements
submitted.
The hearing examiner relied upon all the wage rates paid on
the following projects: General Motors Chevrolet Assembly Project,
the General Dynamics Project, the American Cyanamid Project, the
Bell Helicopter Plant at Grant Prairie, the Bell Helicopter Plant
at Hurst, and "to a lesser extent" the Turnpike Municipal Stadium.
The hearing examiner concluded in his decision that the building
construction rates prevailing at the time of opening bids were
applicable to all the construction activities at the Bell Saginaw
Plant. The six projects were the ones the hearing examiner
considered to be "projects of a character similar" to the Saginaw
Plant.
The Wage Appeals Board does not question in these
proceedings the validity of the generally applicable principle as
enunciated by the hearing examiner, as follows:
The Davis-Bacon Act requires that predeterminations be
made according to wages prevailing on projects of a
character similar to proposed contract work in the city,
town, village, or other civil subdivision in which the
work is to be performed. Thus, as in many past cases,
the question has arisen as to the proper basis of
comparison, where, as here, the controverted work is but
part of an overall planned undertaking. If the work is
considered alone, separate from the project to which it
is related, data for a determination may be gleaned
merely by looking to like work in the area. However, if
the work is viewed in the context of the undertaking of
which it is a part, information as to prevailing wage
rates in the area is properly to be sought by looking to
projects in the area which are of a character similar.
We are not unmindful of the rule that erroneous conclusions of
law may always be set aside upon review while factual findings to
be rejected in a review procedure must lack the support of
substantial evidence. As noted, we do not take issue with the
applicable principle as stated by the hearing examiner. Nor do we
question the principles announced by the Solicitor regarding his
wage determination for the Houston Manned Space Craft Center
(Hearings on H.R. 9656 and 9657. Special Subcommittee on Labor of
the House Committee on Education and Labor, 87th Cong., 2d Sess.,
(1962) p. 209). In Houston, it was recognized (p. 211) that the
keystone in administering the Davis-Bacon Act is the protection of
local prevailing wage practices. In Houston, unlike here, the
matter of size, as well as the extent to which heavy construction
was related to building construction, were described by the
Solicitor as having significance under local prevailing wage
practices.
We do question the sufficiency of the evidence relied upon by
the hearing examiner regarding what rates were paid to the laborers
and mechanics employed in the three disputed classifications on the
six comparable projects. The evidence is essentially testimony of
witnesses that building rates prevailed as to all work, including
paving, "from property line to property line" on the six projects
considered similar in their respective decisions. However, neither
the decision of the Solicitor nor the hearing examiner alludes to
any conflict with the documentary evidence of wage payments. If
the oral testimony is to be viewed consistently with the
documentary evidence, it can only mean that there was a
predominance of building rates (union rates) over heavy and highway
(nonunion) rates on the whole projects involved. There is nothing
to indicate with sufficient clarity or convincing force that there
was any predominance of the building rates in the case of the
individual classifications involved for the performance of paving
work. We are left with the conclusion that the record considered
as a whole does not have sufficient evidence to support the
findings that the laborers and mechanics employed in the three
disputed classifications for the work in question as a part of the
projects selected for comparison were predominantly paid building
trades rates.
ORDER
The portion of the decision of the Solicitor of Labor, dated
March 23, 1966, affirming the decision of the hearing examiner,
relating to the prevailing wage rates for carpenters, laborers, and
operating engineers, is hereby vacated. [END]
