Posts Tagged ‘Lancaster Attorney’

For those of you wondering, it is not okay to push a union official down the stairs of your jobsite trailer, which is precisely what a superintendent working for an Arizona building contractor did.  In the matter of Norquay Construction, Inc., the National Labor Relations Board held that such an assault interfered with the protection afforded to unions under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which protection covers action taken in furtherance of enforcing or protecting area labor rights.  As a result of such interference, the National Labor Relations Board held the contractor liable to the assaulted union agent for lost pay and medical expenses resulting from the superintendent’s assault. 

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction, Union | No Comments »

Surveying – A (Not-So) Subtle Change in the Davis-Bacon Act

On March 22, 2013, Mary Beth Maxwell, the Acting Deputy Administrator for the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, issued Memorandum No. 212 that significantly altered the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to survey crews on federally funded construction projects.  While Acting Deputy Administrator Maxwell characterized the Memorandum as guidance that “supplemented” guidance in Memoranda issued in 1960 and 1962, the fact of the matter is that whereas survey crews were generally excluded from Davis-Bacon Act coverage prior to the issuance of her Memorandum, they are now generally going to be included.

This action was accomplished through a revision to Section 15e20 of the Field Operations Handbook, which is the enforcement “bible” for DOL investigators.  The previous language of Section 15e20(b) included the following:

 “As a general matter, members of the survey party who hold the leveling staff while measurements of distance and elevation are made, who help measure distance with a surveyor chain or other device, who adjust and read instruments for measurement or who direct the work are not considered laborers or mechanics.  However, a crew member who primarily does manual work, for example, clearing brush, is a laborer and is covered for the time so spent.”

 The new language appears designed to reverse this presumption.  It appears that the Operating Engineers Union successfully lobbied the Department of Labor for this change.  Since the Department of Labor has not normally included these classifications in its surveys for purposes of wage determinations, the Memorandum advises that the conformance process will be used until future surveys include these classifications.

By letter dated July 11, 2013, the Chairman of three Congressional committees or subcommittees questioned Acting Deputy Administrator Maxwell on this significant change in long-standing policy and asked for information, including documents relating to the Operating Engineers Union’s request for this change.

Both engineering firms who may do survey work on federal projects and general contractors who may hire survey crews need to be aware of this change so that they are not found in violation of the Davis-Bacon Act.  Please feel free to contact Harmon & Davies if you need additional information.

This article is authored by attorney Tom Davies and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice.  Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction, Davis-Bacon Act, Prevailing Wage | No Comments »

A New York waitress who was fired shortly after telling her managers that she started in-vitro fertilization did not establish sex discrimination claims because she failed to show that the stated reason for her discharge, which the company claimed was her poor performance, was pretextual.

In the case of Govori v. Goat Fifty LLC, the Second Circuit rejected the waitress’s contention that the close timing between her revelation that she was undergoing IVF treatment and her discharge was enough to rebut the restaurant’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing her.  The restaurant claimed that the waitress had a history of poor performance that culminated when she allegedly yelled at a customer on her last day of work.  Additionally, the waitress’s managers were already well aware that the waitress wished to become pregnant and was contemplating IVF before she announced that she had started IVF treatment.  In fact, her managers allegedly supported the waitress in her desire to become pregnant.  Thus, the court concluded that the waitress’s announcement that she was starting treatment was at most “her commencement of but one more step toward her previously announced but still uncertain goal of conceiving a child.”

Although the waitress alleged that her manager told her that she had chosen a different “path” during the telephone call in which the manager terminated the waitress, and that the different “path” referred to the “mommy track” or “mommy path,” the court found that the use of the word “path” could not plausibly be construed as a reference to the “mommy track”.  Rather the court reasoned that the comment about choosing another path was the sort of comment a friend might plausibly use as an attempt to soften the blow of firing an employee with whom she was close.

Because the court found that the waitress failed to refute that her poor performance was the cause of her termination, the court declined to address whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) covers employees who allegedly are fired for undergoing IVF treatment.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Labor & Employment, Pregnancy Discrimination, Sex discrimination | No Comments »