dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority decision. I am of the belief that there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the Board affirming the determination of the Secretary that appellant intentionally violated the Prevailing Wage Act (“Act”), 43 P.S. § 165-1 et seq.
43 P.S. § 165-ll(h)(l) provides that “Any acts of omission or commission done willfully or with a knowing disregard of the rights of workmen resulting in the payment of less than prevailing rates” shall constitute substantial evidence of intentional failure to pay prevailing wage rates.
*292In applying this standard, the majority has seen fit to shield appellant, a “hands-on” contractor, from liability by attributing the willful or knowing disregard of a worker’s rights to the negligence of his subordinate job superintendent. While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the knowing or willful disregard of the worker’s rights resulted from the negligence of a job superintendent, I cannot agree with its conclusion that appellant was unaware of or unable to discover the misclassification and resultant underpayment.
The Secretary, in reviewing this case, determined that appellant was aware of Robinson’s work as a carpenter and nevertheless recorded Robinson’s time as having been spent as a laborer. Thereafter, in reliance upon Dale D. Akins, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industry, 16 Pa.Commw. 191, 329 A.2d 869 (1974), the Secretary stated that “this record keeping not only violates the Act and Regulations but indicates a motivation for such actions,” and concluded that appellant intentionally violated the Act.
In Akins, the Commonwealth Court held that:
[cjertainly it cannot be the law that corporate officials can “turn their backs” or “look the other way,” thus avoiding specific knowledge and then plead the improper payments were not intentional. The very actions of being oblivious to the obvious are, in themselves, a knowing disregard of the rights of workmen which mandates the very severe penalties here involved.
The majority, however, has purported to distinguish Akins from the case sub judice by stating that in Akins “the contractor was aware of its violations and attempted to hide them from the Prevailing Wage Division by telling its workers to ‘lie’ or ‘run’ from Division investigators.” Unlike the majority, I do not believe that Akins is distinguishable from the case sub judice. In Akins, the blame was likewise placed on one job superintendent who did hiring, set the wage rates to be paid, and did not properly or accurately report the work being done by the workmen here *293involved. There is no indication in Akins, as the majority claims, that the contractor found liable was personally involved in the violations or the attempts to hide them. Rather, the Commonwealth Court determined that it could not conclude that the Secretary was without basis for saying that the top officials of the company had the requisite knowledge to make this action intentional based upon the improper conduct surrounding the job site, together with the fact that the principle owner visited the job from time to time.
Our standard of review is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings, whether an error of law was committed or whether any constitutional rights were violated, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704,1 Estate of McGovern v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 512 Pa. 377, 517 A.2d 523 (1986). I conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the determination of the Secretary, as affirmed by the Board, that appellant had the requisite knowledge to support the conclusion that he intentionally violated the Act. This determination is in accord with Akins.
Specifically, I rely upon the fact that: Appellant had prior prevailing wage work experience; appellant made the final determination on the critical employee classification decisions; appellant did not break down the rates for hours workers spent on different job classifications; appellant exhibited a pattern of ignoring or refusing to abide by statutory and regulatory payroll record keeping requirements and of failing to properly classify workers; and appellant was the general superintendent in charge of all field construction; together with the record evidence showing the degree to which appellant was involved with this project on a day to day basis as the general contractor.
I would affirm the Commonwealth Court.
LARSEN and ZAPPALA, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.. Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704, 1978, April 28, P.L. 202, No. 53, § 5.