(a) All questions relating to the application and interpretation of wage determinations (including the classifications therein) issued pursuant to part 1 of this subtitle, of the rules contained in this part and in parts 1 and 3 of this subtitle, and of the labor standards provisions of any of the laws referenced in § 5.1 must be referred to the Administrator for appropriate ruling or interpretation. These rulings and interpretations are authoritative and those under the Davis-Bacon Act may be relied upon as provided for in section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 259). Requests for such rulings and interpretations should be submitted via email to [email protected]; by mail to Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210; or through other means directed by the Administrator.
(b) If any such ruling or interpretation is made by an authorized representative of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, any interested party may seek reconsideration of the ruling or interpretation by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. The procedures and time limits set out in § 1.8 of this subtitle apply to any such request for reconsideration.
[88 FR 57743, Aug. 23, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The Department’s regulations further underscore that contractors do not have the authority to determine the scope *1062 of job classifications based on their own methodologies, providing a means for contractors to obtain clarification from the Department about the proper scope…”
Favel v. Am. Renovation & Constr. Co., 2002 MT 266 (Mont. 2002).
· cites it 2× “¶ 30 Lastly, 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 requires that "[a]ll questions relating to the application and interpretation of wage determinations.”
Garcia v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 (the Department's final determinations of wage rates, "including the classifications therein," are "authoritative"); Danielsen , 941 F.”
Angulo v. Gray, 907 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The Administrator noted that the decision constituted “a final ruling” of the Wage and Hour Division under 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 but that “[a]ny interested party may file a petition for review with the [DOL] Administrative Review Board [“ARB”] pursuant to 29 C.”
Griffin v. Reich, 956 F. Supp. 98 (D.R.I. 1997).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 (1995). They also argue that Griffin had been investigated by the Department of La *104 bor prior to the present action and, therefore, knew that he should consult the Department of Labor.”
George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Chao, 463 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D. Conn. 2006).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 . However, Campbell has not explained why it did not make use of this procedure to resolve any potential ambiguities as to proper pay rates.”
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 41 v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 686 F. Supp. 66 (W.D.N.Y. 1988).
· cites it 7× “HUD bases this argument upon 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 , which provides as follows: All questions relating to the application and interpretation of wage determinations (including the classifications therein) issued pursuant to Part 1 of this subtitle, of the rules contained in this part…”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't, Afl-Cio v. Chao (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 3× “Sullivan to submit a request to the Acting Administrator of the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division “pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 for a determination whether the Davis-Bacon Act applie[d] to construction of the three privately-financed buildings on land conveyed by [the…”
Menjivar Garcia v. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. (D.D.C. 2018).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 5.13 (the Department’s final determinations of wage rates, “including the classifications therein,” are “authoritative”); Danielsen, 941 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.