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 rUntitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion