About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


102535 1 (1977-03-08)

handle is hein.gao/gaobacxoo0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DOCUMENT RESUME 02535 - [A1732733] (Restricted) [Administration of Minimum Wage Rate Determinations Subject to Provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act]. March 8, 1977, 5 pp. Report to John Kane, Area Director, Department of Housing and Urban Development: Milwaukee Area Office, WI; by G. F. Stroevall, Regional Manager, Field Operations Div.: Regional office (Chicago). i:sue Area: Consumer and Worker Protection (900). Cont.ct: Field Operations Div.: Regional office (Chicago). Budget vunction: Education, Manpower, and Social Services: Other Laboi Services (505). Organizatits Concerned: Department of Labor. Authority: Da'is-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers employed on Federal or federal'y assisted construction projects costing in excess of $2,000 be paid minimum wages and benefits based on prevailing rates, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Federal contracting agencies are responsible for enforcing minimum vage provisions pursuant to regulations issued by the Department of Labor (DOL). Findings/Conclusions: The Milwaukee Area office sponsored training workshops and delegated enforcement responsibilities to grantees. Housing and Urban Development (BUD) instructions require actions to ensure contractor compliance. The area office retained responsibility for monitoring grantees' enforcement practices, but HUD representatives visited the Beloit project only once and did not visit the Sheboygan site. On the Sheboygan project, several instances of noncompliance were identified, including failure to interview workers, failure to follow conformance procedures, failure to obtain registration papers, and omission of applicable area wage determination from contract specifications. One wage payment violation and some inaccuracies were disclosed. On the Beloit project, it was found that the grantee had not interviewed employees, nor established procedures to ensure that contractors submitted payrolls, nor resolved zinderpayments of wages. A limited payroll examination revealed two examples of violations. In general, it was believed that the grantees and HUD were ineffective in assuring ccntractor compliance with labor standards. (HTU)