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 improvement 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Solicitor, Davis-Bacon Section, U.S. Labor Department, Washington, D.C.: (1) Re following correspondence on AA-2584 (superseded by AA-12154) covering Milligan sewer project in Fillmore County, Nebr.: (1) Your November 15 letter, (2) our November 20, wire (3) your November 22 telephone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, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, Washington, December 15, 1961. Airmail. Re wage determination No. AA-12154, Milligan, Fillmore County, 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, 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. JAMES CRITCHFIELD. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Airmail. 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 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 aration, excavation, and work below grade. That area practice was more firmly established when construction began, in 1954 and 1955, on two large Air Force bases in our State. Collective bargaining agreements were negotiated with all major construction crafts which definitely established the practice for those crafts involved in both classifications of work and, in most cases, stipulated different rates of wages for each. The practice was still further established by definitions included in our agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, which reads as follows: Work covered by this agreement is that applicable to actual building construction exclusive of work below grade, site preparation, backfilling, and any work classified as highway, heavy, or railroad construction which is defined as follows: Heavy construction and railroad contracting work is defined as constructing substantially in its entirety any fixed structure and other improvement or modification thereof, or any addition or repair thereto, including any structure or operation which is an incidental part of a contract thereof, including without limitation (not including building construction except as to work below grade and including grading on site), railroads and street railway construction projects, sewers, watermains, grade separations, foundations, pile driving, piers, abutments, retaining walls, viaducts, shafts, tunnels, subways, track elevation, elevated highways, drainage projects, sanitation projects, aqueducts, irrigation projects, flood control projects, reclamation projects, reservoirs, water supply projects, water power development, hydroelectric development, duct lines, pipelines, locks, dams, dikes, levees, revetments, channels, channel cutoffs, intakes, dredging projects, jetties, breakwaters, docks, harbors, industrial sites, airports. excavation, and disposal of earth and rock, including the assembly, operation, maintenance and repair of all equipment, vehicles and other facilities used in connection with and serving the aforementioned work and services. Highway construction work is defined as all work ordinarily included in highway construction contracts, bridges, sewer and street grading, street paving, curb setting, sidewalks, etc. That practice still prevails throughout the State of North Dakota as well as on the two Air Force bases. For many years the Depart ment of Labor has issued its wage decisions in accordance with that practice and the wage scales provided in the collective bargaining agreements, if any existed, not only for Air Force base construction but for all construction subject to the Department of Labor authority. Late in July 1961, three of our members and I went to Montana and South Dakota to visit missile construction projects and learn whatever we could of any problems which had been encountered. We did this knowing that a Minuteman missile project was to be started in North Dakota, and we hoped to be prepared so as to avoid anything which would interfere with that project or cause any unnecessary disturbance for that or other construction work. We were cautioned to be sure all practices and wage rates were firmly established with the Department of Labor. Also, and much to our surprise, we learned that all missile projects were being classified by the Department of Labor as "building construction" even though the work would cer tainly be classified as "heavy construction" under all accepted definitions. There could be only one reason for this—a means of increasing pay to workmen on these projects. Upon return from that trip, I called the Department of Labor and inquired as to the rates they intended to use for the Minot, N. Dak., Minuteman project. It was stated that they planned to use the rates in effect on the Minot Air Force Base. Some time later, we received this letter from James M. Miller, then Assistant Solicitor of Labor, and the enclosure referred to: This is in reference to your recent telephone conversation with Attorney William J. Kendrick of this office concerning missile site construction contemplated for the Ward County area of North Dakota. We recently issued wage decision AA-1,946, copy enclosed, requested by the Air Force for a building project in connection with proposed Minuteman missile site construction at Minot Air Force Base in Ward County. As yet we have not received any requests for wage decisions for the actual construction of the Minuteman projects. As you will note, the wages issued in the enclosed decision are those currently prevailing in the subject area. Your interest and continued cooperation in these labor standards matters is sincerely appreciated. The rates were "those currently prevailing" and the decision contains both the "building" and the "site preparation" scales and classifications. It was dated July 25, 1961. On August 17, 1961, the Department of Labor issued decisions AA3172, AA-3175, AA-3176, and AA-3177 for "Construction of Minuteman facilities and appurtenant worksite." These were the same as the July 25 decision. On October 26, 1961, the Department of Labor issued decisions AA10,652-3-4-5-6-7-8, for "Construction of Minuteman facilities and appurtenant worksite" which were the same as the previous decisions. Each separate decision was for work in a different county, but rates and classifications were all uniform. On December 6, 1961, a decision was issued for another county but it too was identical with the others. During the period August to December 1961, we received a request for further clarification of the division between "building construction and highway-municipal-heavy construction." That was submitted to the Department of Labor in a letter dated September 29, 1961. This and a few calls from union representatives indicated that efforts were being made to eliminate the lower wage scales from the Minuteman decision altogether. On December 12, 1961, the Corps of Engineers requested very detailed information, verified by an official of the construction firm submitting the information. This was supplied the following day and covered the period 1955 to November 1, 1961, and included 49 separate projects on the Minot Air Force Base, all of which had been done under the area practice. Actually, several projects had already been completed or were under construction, providing facilities for the Minuteman project and all in accordance with the area practice. Bids for the Minot Minuteman project were to be opened on December 21, 1961, in St. Paul, Minn. On December 19, prospective bidders on the project received a telegram from CEBMCO, which is the Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, which advised as follows: A. The wage rates set forth under the heading "Site Preparation and Incidental Paving" have been determined by the Department of Labor to be the minimum wage rates for the following categories of work on the project: all site preparation work and backfilling and all excavation, except for missile silos; all access roads and parking and turnaround areas. B. All other wage rates preceding those under the heading "Site Preparation and Incidental Paving" and all wage rates under the heading "Building Construction" have been determined by the Department of Labor to be the minimum wage rates for the following categories of work on the project: all work in |