Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OFTHE A~ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN a.ruLo~- kH.Xlea- tfonoroblr, Weaver 8. Baker, Chaiman Board of Control i\ustin, Tsxas Sear Sir: na of Article when through ake or fist8 at bstween the ontrol and the pr0~id~ r0r 8 Your Letter and the encloauros enumerated revealed ,the rouowing ruots: (1) The speoiriaations mda by you on rhloh %ord Conetruction Company baaed its bid oontained the follo*sfn% 1 . 870 -5onorable :;eavur ii. hkzr, page 2 *L;sJ:.H ;i;;*,I: I:Y;i>, L.;iTy: “The provisions of the prevailing wage law, Ii. 8. 30. M, Chapter 4b, Aots or the iiceular Semion of the Bortp-thtrd b@slature will be In etreot on this aontract. The stipulated pro- railing rate or per Diem wages for thls contract 15: aClass “Per hour ntr* Iv+** a*** I)**. “Ploatarers $l.W n+** The Contruotor ahull r0rreit 8s a penalty to the Jtote ten ($13.00) dollars ros suoh laborer, workma or meohanle employed, ior eaah calendar day, or portion thereof, such laborer, mrkmen, or meohaaio ia paid less than the mid stipulated rates for any work done under said oontrnct, by him, or by any suboontraotor under him.* (2) By letter dated Pobruary 4, 1942, the looal Flnsterers’ tinion SO, 183, 00tiri0a the imte Board 0r Labor Statlstlc6 thst the prevailing rate Or wage6 tOr journey.neu plasterers would be lnareased from $1.50 per hour to $1.75 per hour on oontracte entered into after April 12, 1942. The Local’8 letter stated that the 81.50 rate had been mln- talned for four (4) year*, but thnt increased living oosts neceeoltnted the raise. The letter was reoelved by the Bureau 0r Labor %atiatics on February 17, 1842. Looal 783, arriiiatea with the American yederatfon of Labor, olaims Jurisdlotlon of 871 Honorable ieaves ii. RciiWr, page 3 the rollowing countirrr Travis, %StTOP, Bass, LaJWasas, Bayette, Les, Blanoo, Burnett, Caldwell, ~lll~anaoa, Llano, hi Saba, and Dell. (3) on April let berorr the emotive aato at tbe above rarerred to tioreaso, the Boreao of Labor Stetirtios contacted numerous oontraotors in the Austin area to deter&m ii ths Inorease was aoaeptable to then, All r6plies received to inqulrirs lndloated the lnoreared rate was scoeptable and no raplies were recoivsdto the oontrarr. Lett6rswrrr rm- amired iron a number of oontraatorr whose asMe are ret out fn tha letter from the Comtalosioner of thr Buseau oi Labor Statistios, that ths lnoreasebrate8 wera agmeablr to timmr kiowrver, idoor Coaetruatioo Companydoeln’t appear 08 aaid list. Atter reoelring the ravorable replies to It8 inquiry, the Bureau or Labor Statfstfos oorrected its iils to reflect 31.75 per hour aa the prevailing wage soalo ior journeymen plasterers. (4) Your letter stated that you railed to rewire the Aotiae nalled you by the Bureau of Labor 6tatiotlas as to the increased scale 0r pay 0r plasterer8 snd you, therrrore, set up the rate of $1.60 in your speoliioations on the oontraot later awarded to Moore Construction Company. (5) The letter mm SioosCOAStrUatiOA COrnpSA~ to you 5tated that it was not notified at any time prior to 8fgAin6 the coAtraot Hap 22, 1942, by the Labor Board, the plastererr’. repressAtativ0, or any other SgSAOy, oonoer~ing the inorsased rata of pay oi plasterera until Mar 22, 1942, when said raot was called to it8 attention by the plasterers’ representative. After aheaking with the State Labor Board, Moore Constructloo Company paid said prevailing waee, and now requests the Board of Control to remunerate it for the lncreaeed amount paid plastarers u&aT it above the amount set out in the speolfioa- tioas and oontraot, together with the additional coat of in- suranoo required and a lO$ profit oa said inoressed amounta, Under the above raotr taken rrom four latter aad en- O~~SUCO~, you propound to us three questions as rollowrr “1. UAdeT the tsots herein submitted and RS shown by the attaohed file, in the light or the law or this titato, do we owe c(ooro Conrtruotion Company on room repairs to the State Capitol OA above de- soribed oontract, dated J&y 22, 1942, tha sum or 91609.10 for 6422 hours of labor for plasterers Bonorable :ieaver 8. Btiksr, page 4 paid an addltional Zb# per hour for work pariorned by them on said job ovw and above the $1.50 par hour set out in the oclntraot. “2. Are we bound to pay for the item or lnsuranoe aet out in suoh rtatement of $225.277 “3. Are we bound to pay the 8183.44 profit alatied by the &ore Construction Company in view of the hate and law above oubmittsd?” It is noted that both the rpeoiflaation for bide and the oontrmt entered into with aore Construction Company eet out that the provisions or Artiole 3169a, Vornon’tt Annotated Civil Statutes, would be in eifeot on this ooatraat. Artiole 5159a, V.A.C.8.. providea a5 r0~lowat ‘580. 1. Not leas than the general prevailing rate at diem wages tot work of 8 aiixilar per ohnrao- tsr in the locality in whloh the work is performd, and not leas than the general prevailing r