STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALFRED BROOKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1458

)

EXCLUSIVE CARPETS, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Michael R.N. McDonnell, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 29, 1977, in Room 200, Training Room, Thomas Center, 306, N. E. 6th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida.

Petitioner was represented by Daniel T. O'Connell, Esquire, of O'Connell and Hauslander. Respondent was represented by John Edwin Schulman, Esquire, and William R. Burwell Esquire, of Wershow, Burwell, Carroll & Wershow.

Petitioner (hereafter Brooks) seeks to recover from Respondent (hereafter Exclusive Carpets) monies Brooks claims are owed to him for labor performed as a carpet layer's helper on the General Purpose Building A project at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Brooks alleges the failure to pay in support of his claim for relief, rather than the payment of wages less than the prevailing wage rate. Exclusive Carpets contends that Brooks has no remedy under Chapter 215, Florida Statutes, since mere nonpayment of wages does not constitute a "prevailing wage case."

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Between June 13 and June 24, 1977, Brooks was employed by one William Ballance as a carpet layers's helper on General purpose Building A project at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Brooks was paid directly by Mr. Ballance.

   
   

2. Mr. Ballance was a subcontractor of Exclusive Carpets rather than an employee. Ballance was paid in full for his work as subcontractor.

   
   

3. Brooks claims he is due the sum of $202.50 in payment for 57.5 hours of work at the rate of $3.00 per hour between June 13 and June 24, 1977. There is no evidence to indicate that any violations of Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, occurred. Rather, the evidence only shows that Brooks received no payment at all for the time in question.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

4. This action is brought pursuant to Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, commonly known as the "Prevailing Wage Law." The statute gives an aggrieved employee the right to seek relief against a contractor or subcontractor who fails to comply with Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, relative to the payment of prevailing wages.

   
   

5. This section of Florida Statutes does not mandate the payment of wages per se. Rather, it requires that contracts for public works contain a provision setting the rate of wages for laborers, mechanics and apprentices at an amount not less than the prevailing rate of wages as determined by the Division of Labor.

   
   

6. In the instant case, the question of whether Brooks was employed at the prevailing wage rate is not in issue. Brooks has simply brought an action for nonpayment of wages which is not contemplated by Chapter 215, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, it is

RECOMMENDED that the claim be denied.

DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.

MICHAEL R. N. McDONNELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Daniel T. O'Connell, Esquire

33 North Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601

John Edwin Schulman, Esquire William R. Burwell, Esquire

204 Southeast First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601

Mr. Luther J. Moore Administrator of Prevailing Wage Department of Commerce

1321 Executive Center Drive East Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 77-001458

Orders for Case No: 77-001458