CCASE:
JACK PICOULT
DDATE:
19680826
TTEXT:
~1
[1] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WAGE APPEALS BOARD
In the Matter of
WAB Case
Petition by Jack Picoult for No. 68-08
review of decision of the
Solicitor dated October 9, 1967,
concerning electricians'
apprentices['] wage rates under
the following contracts for
United States Post Offices:
GS-02B-13,098, Passaic, N.J. Dated: August 26, 1968
GS-02B-13,983, Bayonne, N.J.
GS-02B-13,087, Hoboken, N.J.
Before: SMITH, Chairman, and BARKER and ROTHMAN, Members.
[DECISION]
The petitioner, Jack Picoult, in three letters dated December
7, 1967 (received by the Board on December 22, 1967), with respect
to contracts GS-02B-13,098, Passaic, N.J.; GS-02B-13,983, Bayonne,
N.J.; and GS-02B-13,087, Hoboken, N. J., referred to a "final
decision" of a contracting officer of the General Services
Administration which in turn relied upon a decision by the Office
of the Solicitor. Picoult then stated the following:
Accordingly, please be advised that the undersigned
Contractor does hereby appeal said decision to the Wage
Appeals Board. However, we make this appeal without
admitting the original, Appellate, or final jurisdiction
of said Wage Appeals Board to hear and/or decide any
matter contained in said "final decision." This Appeal
is thus made for the sole purpose of preserving all our
rights especially in view of the time requirements for
making said Appeals. [1]
~2
[2] On January 2, 1968, the petitioner was advised that the
information received was insufficient to process the case. A copy
of the Board's rules was furnished to the petitioner at that time.
The Board heard nothing further from the petitioner until July
1968, at which time there was a further exchange of correspondence.
The petitioner on August 16, 1968, perfected his petition for
review of a Solicitor's decision dated October 9, 1967, concerning
electrician's apprentice wage rates under the above-captioned
contracts.
ORDER
The Wage Appeals Board hereby declines to review the petition
for lack of timeliness. /FN1/ The petitioner has failed in a
timely manner to prosecute his appeal from the Solicitor's decision
dated October 9, 1967. [2]
OSCAR S. SMITH, CHAIRMAN
CLARENCE D. BARKER, MEMBER
STUART ROTHMAN, MEMBER
WAGE APPEAL BOARD
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
/FN1/ Cf. Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. 7.8(b). [2]
