UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY
OFFICERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 80,
In re: Application of Wage Determination
No. 94-2103, rev. 17, 7/9/98, to work performed
by Court Security Officers in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area.
Appearances: For the Complainant:
Bruce C. Cohen, Esq., Clayton, Missouri
For the Respondent:
Ford F. Newman, Esq., Douglas J. Davidson, Esq., Steven J.
Mandel, Esq.
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965, as
amended, 41 U.S.C. §351 et seq.; the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§327-32; and 29 C.F.R. Part 8, the Administrative
Review Board (Board) received a petition for review filed by United Government Security
Officers of America, Local No. 80 (Local 80), seeking review of a letter dated October 5, 1999,
from Mr. Timothy Helm of the Office of Enforcement Policy in the Department of Labor's Wage
and Hour Division. Local 80 wrote to Helm requesting that he reverse the Wage and Hour
Division's decision that Wage Determination No. 94-2103, Revision 17, is inapplicable to a court
security contract performed by AKAL Security in Washington, D.C. Helm rejected Local 80's
request and Local 80 filed a petition for review with the Board.
On November 30, 1999, Charles E. Pugh, Deputy National Office Program
Administrator, wrote to Local 80 stating,
[t]his is a supplemental response to your letter concerning
application of section 4.165(c) of McNamara O'Hara Service
Contract Act (SCA) Regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 4, to a court
security contract performed by AKAL Security (AKAL) in
Washington, D.C. We note that you have already filed with the
Department's Administrative Review Board a petition for review
of our previous letter of October 12, 1999, in which we disagreed
with your position. However, the October 12 letter did not
constitute a final ruling appealable to the Board under its
regulations. Because we have nothing further to add on this matter
and to expedite the review process, we are restating our position in
this letter, from which you may seek review before the Board.
On December 1, 1999, the Deputy Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division filed a
motion requesting the Board to dismiss the petition as premature.