CCASE:
PALMER AND SICARD, INC.
DDATE:
19771214
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of
PALMER AND SICARD, INC.
WAB Case No. 77-12
BEQ Brunswick NAS
Brunswick, Maine Dated: December 14, 1977
Appearances: Leon L. Sicard, Treasurer for Palmer and Sicard,
Inc.
George E. Rivers, Esquire, Gail V. Coleman, Esquire
for the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of
Labor
Decision by: Alfred L. Ganna, Chairman, William T. Evans, Member,
Thomas M. Phelan, Member
DECISION OF THE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
This case is before the Wage Appeals Board on the Petition
of Palmer & Sicard, Inc., to review the decision of the Assistant
Administrator, dated May 28, 1975, and affirmed by the Deputy
Administrator on July 25, 1975. Petitioner was a plumbing and
heating subcontractor working on the modernization of bachelor
enlisted quarters at Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine.
Following an investigation by the Wage and Hour Division of
possible labor standards violations funds in the amount of
$1,295.44 were withheld [1]
~2
[2] to cover back wages for two apprentices allegedly employed by
Petitioner in excess of ratio requirements allowed by the Department
of Labor's regulations, 29 CFR [sec] 5.5(a)(4)(i).
Petitioner has apprenticeship programs registered with the
New Hampshire State Apprenticeship Council for training apprentices
in three areas: these are plumbing and heating, air conditioning
and sheet metal work. Petitioner has no separate registered
programs for steamfitting or welding training. Nevertheless
apprentice training in steamfitting and welding are elements of the
Petitioner's plumbing and heating program. This program, a copy of
which was provided to the Board as Exhibit A of the Brief for the
Assistant Administrator, allows the employment of one apprentice
for up to each five journeymen working on the job. It is the
Petitioner's position that the plumbing and heating program allows
him to employ one apprentice in each category: (plumbing,
steamfitting, or welding) for which he is employing one to five
journeymen on the project.
The Department of Labor contends that the proper interpretation of
Petitioner's program allows him to employ only one apprentice for every
five or less journeymen employed on the project regardless of whether he
is training as plumber, steamfitter or welder. After the Wage and Hour
Division concluded its investigation [2]
~3
[3] at the request of the contracting office of the Navy Department
it determined that Petitioner employed two apprentices in excess of the
allowable ratio of its plumbing and heating apprenticeship program. The
back wages computed to be due these two employees were withheld from the
contract price by the Navy Department. Petitioner protested the back
wage findings to the Navy Department and to the Wage and Hour Division,
and on May 28, 1975, the Assistant Administrator affirmed this finding
to the Navy. On July 25, 1977, the Deputy Administrator, in response to
a further letter from Petitioner, advised that the Assistant
Administrator's decision was reaffirmed. On May 11, 1977, this petition
to the Wage Appeals Board was filed.
The Board considered this matter on the basis of the
aforementioned petition filed on behalf of Palmer and Sicard, Inc.,
and on the brief from the Assistant Administrator, Wage and Hour
Division, submitted by the Solicitor of Labor. It was determined
that a hearing by the Board would not be necessary since there is
no dispute as to the facts in the case. The issue raised by the
Petitioner is the correct interpretation of its apprenticeship
program in the light of the Department's regulation, 29 CFR [sec]
5.5(a)(4)(i), allowing contractors to employ apprentices on Federal
or federally-assisted projects at less than the prevailing wage
rate for the trade. [3]
~4
[4] The Wage Appeals Board does not agree with the
interpretation of the apprenticeship program that the Petitioner
contends is correct. The plumbing and heating apprenticeship
program trains apprentices to learn plumbing, steamfitting and
welding among other skills required of a journeyman plumber. Even
if the apprentices are learning these three and probably more
elements of the plumbing trade, they are still being trained only
as plumbers.
The Department's Regulation 29 CFR [sec] 5.5(a)(4)(i)
requires the apprentices to be registered in a program. For the
types of skills being considered here the plumber training program
is the only program in which Petitioner participates. Although the
apprentices get some steamfitter and welding training in their
plumbing course, they will only become journeymen plumbers after
completing their training, not journeymen steamfitters or welders.
In view of this the Board can look to no other plan except the
plumber apprenticeship training plan to obtain the approved ratio
of apprentices to journeymen. This plan allows only one apprentice
for up to five journeymen.
The decision of the Deputy Administrator is hereby confirmed.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger, Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [4]
