CCASE:
ATCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
DDATE:
19870129
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of
ATCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. WAB Case No. 86-01
405 Family Housing Units
Adak NAS, Alaska Dated: January 29, 1987
Contract N62474-83-C2569
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Wage Appeals Board is in receipt of a Motion for
Reconsideration of its decision dated August 22, 1986 in the
above-captioned appeal. The motion was filed by the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command (hereinafter Navy) which included
an argument to support its contention that the fabrication
facility in Portland, Oregon, should not be covered by the
Davis-Bacon labor standards provisions.
The Board notes that the Certificates of Service filed as part
of the Petition for Review and the Statement on Behalf of the
Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, show that copies of
these documents were furnished to the Navy. The documents were
mailed on December 30, 1985 and February 10, 1986. On May 20, 1986
an oral hearing was held on this matter and the Navy did not
participate. Therefore, it appears that the Navy chose not to
participate in this appeal. [1]
~2
[2] Now, a year later, that government agency wishes to enter
this matter by filing a Motion for Reconsideration on December 22,
1986. Since the Navy has been on notice and elected not to be a
party to this appeal for almost a year, it is the Board's
conclusion that its motion is untimely.
Assuming, arguendo, that the motion is timely, it is not well
founded. The Navy assumes that the Board did not take into
consideration the arguments made in support of its motion. That is
not so. When the Board made its decision it was fully aware of the
Navy's arguments. The Board is familiar with the Comptroller
General's decision, B-148076, July 23. 1963, 43 Comp. Gen. 84. The
Board is also aware that the House Committee on Education and Labor
during oversight hearings in 1962 was cognizant of the off-site
coverage by the Department of Labor. In its Committee report
issued in 1963, it did not address the question. Since that time,
the Wage and Hour Division has consistently used functional and
geographical tests in determining the "site of the work" and the
Wage Appeals Board in the past has upheld these tests.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby denied.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger,
Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [2]
