Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, except that here is a case before us. We ought to ask the Department about a case like this. What are citizens supposed to do in a situation like this? Mr. ROOSEVELT. A good idea. I can assure you the committee will want to know their ideas. He can ask them. Mr. GRIFFIN. Have you tried to get access to this file and the information upon which the Labor Department had made this decision? That is, with respect to the beginner operator. Mr. CRITCHFIELD. Without reviewing the file again, I can't answer that question. Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, you can go over there any time you want to and look through the file. You heard him say this morning that you can. So go ahead and try it. Mr. CRITCHFIELD. My experience would be that this might be an interesting experience for this committee. Mr. GRIFFIN. Go over and find out whether or not you can look through the file and see what basis they have for the decision they made. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Critchfield, you have been very patient with the subcommittee and I think you helped the committee considerably in the decision. We are very grateful to you for your information. If you do have any further thoughts I am sure you will give them to the subcommittee, particularly the ones we mentioned. Mr. CRITCHFIELD. Yes. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will hear from three witnesses tomorrow morning: Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, manager of Associated General Contractors of North Dakota; Mr. Kenneth R. Lewis, executive secretary of the Master Builders of Iowa, AGC, in Des Moines: and Mr. L. B. Hall, a manager of the New York State Chapter of AGC from Albany, N.Y. We will adjourn until 10:15 tomorrow morning, and meet in executive session in this room at 9:30. (The following material from Mr. Critchfield follows:) Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, NEBRASKA CHAPTER, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROOSEVELT: This is to supplement my Davis-Bacon testimony on June 7 that the State engineer and I were refused important wage information by the Labor Department in 1958. Congressman Pucinski asked if any wage information had been withheld from me during Secretary Goldberg's administration. Enclosed are copies of 1961 correspondence documenting such an experience in connection with a sanitary sewer system project being built by the village of Milligan. On November 15, the Labor Department turned down our request to correct a certain rate saying “our records indicate that the building rate for this classification is paid on heavy construction in the cited area." [Italic added.] We responded by requesting the cited evidence by wire November 20, by letter November 27, by wire December 15, and by wire December 18. The Labor Department answered these communications but it did not furnish the evidence. 88711-62-14 Instead, on December 21, it admitted "the wage rate which you protest was taken, for lack of other evidence, from area building construction projects." [Italic added.] If I could examine the evidence, I believe I could show that the rate which the Labor Department picked isn't even the true area rate on building construction in the village of Milligan. Instead, I believe it is a "paper" rate taken from a union agreement at Hastings, 64 miles west of Milligan. Sincerely yours, JAMES CRITCHFIELD. Airmail. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Re wage decision No. AA-2584, Milligan, Fillmore County, Nebr. Manager, Nebraska Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., DEAR MR. CRITCHFIELD: Reference is made to your letter of October 2, 1961, and our reply of October 23, 1961, concerning your request that the building rates included in the above decision be deleted. We have considered this matter further and under the circumstances involved we are deleting all the building rates except plumbers. It appears plumbers are required for the subject project and our records indicate that the building rate for this classification is paid on heavy construction in the cited area. We appreciate your cooperation and interest in these labor standards matters. Very truly yours, JAMES MILLER, Assistant Solicitor, Davis-Bacon Section, CHARLES Donahue, Solicitor of Labor. By JAMES M. MILLER, Assistant Solicitor. NOVEMBER 20, 1961. U.S. Labor Department, Washington, D.C.: (1) Re your November 15, 1961, letter on AA-2584 covering Milligan sewer project in Fillmore County, Nebr., saying, "Our records indicate the building rate for this classification (plumbers at $3) is paid on heavy construction in the cited area." (2) This is possible but extremely hard to understand since heavy contractors practically never employ plumbers on sewer projects in Nebraska, including sewer projects in Omaha which is highly unionized. (3) By return wire collect, may we have names of heavy projects you are referring to where $3 plumbers have done pipework on sewer projects like Milligan? JAMES CRITCHFIELD, Nebraska Chapter, AGC. NEBRASKA CHAPTER, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, November 27, 1961. MR. JAMES MILLER, Assistant Solicitor, U.S. Labor Department, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLER: (1) This is to supplement our November 20 wire on AA-2584 (superseded by AA-12154) asking: "May we have names of heavy projects you are referring to where $3 plumbers have done pipework on sewer projects like Milligan? (2) The prevailing practice in Nebraska is that pipework, including metal pipework, on projects built by highway-heavy contractors is installed by pipelayers (laborers) for the reason that highway-heavy contractors here never hire licensed plumbers on sanitary sewer systems or on any other sewer or waterwork projects. (3) To verify this, we urge that you study your Lincoln Air Force Base file on pipelayers wherein your Department ruled that highway-heavy pipelayers may install metal pipe of all sizes and descriptions on water main projects, including incidental service lines of all sizes. (4) The same ruling by your Department was made on a water supply contract at Hastings Municipal Airport in 1959. (See your file on T-21628.) Copies of May 11, 1959, June 3, 1959, letters and wires from this file plus a copy of your Department's reply dated July 10, 1959, are enclosed. (5) Also the same ruling by your Department was made on a swimming pool chlorination system at Halsey in Thomas County, Nebr., in 1961. Several letters from this file and a copy of your Department's reply are enclosed. (6) Our June 3, 1959, letter on the Hastings project includes a summary of numerous pipelayer studies on Lincoln Air Force Base. (7) Today's facts still indicate that there is nothing to substantiate your Department's requiring the use of plumbers on the Milligan sewer improve ment project. (8) We urge that Milligan predetermination project AA-12154 be corrected by deleting plumbers. (9) Otherwise, we ask that you answer the question in our November 20 wire which is repeated in the first paragraph of this letter. Sincerely yours, JAMES CRITCHFIELD, Manager. DECEMBER 15, 1961. JAMES MILLER, Assistant Solicitor, Davis-Bacon Section, U.S. Labor Department, Washington, D.C.: (1) Re following correspondence on AA-2584 (superseded by AA-12154) covering Milligan sewer project in Fillmore County, Nebr.: (1) Your November 15 letter, (2) our November 20, wire (3) your November 22 telephone request for additional information, and (4) our November 27 letter furnishing this information. (2) What is your decision? (3) Classification plumbers in this predetermination tends to mislead bidders while simultaneously there is no reasonable expectation that classification is needed. These two conditions existing simultaneously, we request that classification be deleted. (4) Otherwise we respectfully repeat: "May we have names of heavy projects you are referring to (in November 15 letter) where $3 plumbers have done pipework on sewer projects like Milligan?" JAMES CRITCHFIELD, Nebraska Chapter, AGC. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Airmail. Re wage determination No. AA-12154, Milligan, Fillmore County, Nebr. MR. JAMES CRITCHFIELD, Manager, Nebraska Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, Lincoln, Nebr. DEAR MR. CRITCHFIELD: This is in reply to your letter of November 27, 1961, and earlier communications, with reference to the hourly wage rate for plumbers in the subject wage determination. We have in our files a drawing of the lift station to be installed at Milligan. The drawing clearly indicates that some plumbing operations will be necessary to install and vent the pump. That is why a classification and rate for plumbers was included. This does not, however, mean that plumbers have to be employed or even that the plumbers' rate has to be paid on work which by area practice is not normally performed by plumbers. Consequently, if in fact the area practice is to have such work as that here in question done by laborers at the laborers' rate, as you assert, no action to enforce a higher rate would be appropriate and the contractor would have no cause for concern. On the other hand, I believe that the plumbers' classification and rate should remain in the determination just in case plumbers are employed to do this or other work allocated to them pursuant to local practice. Your interest and assistance in this matter is appreciated. CHARLES DONAHUE, By JAMES M. MILLER, Assistant Solicitor. DECEMBER 18, 1961. JAMES MILLER, Assistant Solicitor, Davis-Bacon Section, U.S. Labor Department, (1) Thank you for December 15 reply on Milligan received this morning. (2) I appreciate explanation but explanation does not answer my direct question. (3) I want your documentary payroll basis for plumbers and your documentary payroll basis for $3 rate. (4) May I please have names of any projects within 100 miles of Milligan where $3 rate has been paid on any phase of pipework on a sewer project like Milligan or on a heavy-highway Bureau of Reclamation canal or dam project or on the interstate. (5) In addition, may I have names of any projects within 100 miles of Milligan where men called plumbers have been employed on a sewer project like Milligan or on a highway-heavy Bureau of Reclamation canal or dam or on the interstate. (6) Please notice these are questions and this is a request for answers to these two questions. Airmail. JAMES CRITCHFIELD. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., December 21, 1961. Re wage determination No. AA-12154, Milligan, Fillmore County, Nebr. Manager, Nebraska Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, DEAR MR. CRITCHFIELD: This is in reply to your telegram of December 20, 1961, with reference to the subject wage determination. The wage rate which you protest was taken, for lack of other evidence, from area building construction projects. It would be helpful if you would provide this office with wage payment evidence for workmen who perform incidental plumbing operations in connection with installation of pumps on similar projects in this area. Yours sincerely, CHARLES DONAHUE, Solicitor of Labor. By JAMES M. MILLER, Assistant Solicitor. (Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene Friday, June 8, 1962, at 10:15 a.m.) ADMINISTRATION OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. James Roosevelt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Roosevelt and Hiestand. Staff members present: Howard G. Gamser, chief counsel for labormanagement; Edmund Edelman, subcommittee counsel; Richard T. Burress, minority clerk; and Adrienne Fields, subcommittee clerk. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will come to order, please. The committee this morning has the pleasure of welcoming as witnesses three gentlemen, Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, manager, of the Associated General Contractors of North Dakota, Bismarck, N. Dak.; Mr. Kenneth R. Lewis, executive secretary of the Master Builders of Iowa, Associated General Contractors, of Des Moines, Iowa; Mr. Louis G. Blackhall, managing director, of the New York State Chapter, Associated General Contractors, Albany, N.Y. Gentlemen, I was going to suggest that all three of you come up at the same time and, if you care to participate in the discussion as we go along, that will be fine. Unless you have other wishes, suppose we ask Mr. Hoffman to start off, and then we will go on down the line. Mr. Hoffman, you have a prepared statement, I believe. Do you want to deliver it or summarize it? How would you like to proceed? STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. HOFFMAN, MANAGER, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF NORTH DAKOTA, BISMARCK, N. DAK. Mr. HOFFMAN. I will perhaps skip part of it that is a little more detailed, but otherwise I will follow it pretty generally. Mr. ROOSEVELT. You go ahead as you like, and your full statement will be inserted in the record. Mr. HOFFMAN. My name is Charles L. Hoffman. I am manager of Associated General Contractors of North Dakota, and have held that position for over 9 years. Our association is somewhat unusual in that our membership is composed of general contractors engaged in all the three major categories of construction-building, highway, and municipal-heavy. There has been a long-established practice in North Dakota to use what we call "building rates" for actual building construction and "highway-municipal-heavy rates," which are lower rates, for site prep |