AGC's Human Resource and Labor News - November 28, 2012 / Issue No. 6-12 (Print All Articles)

Back to Graphical Version | Search back issues


Davis-Bacon Pitfalls & Hot Topics to be Covered in AGC Webinar Dec. 11 and 13

AGC of America will provide its latest training on federal prevailing wage laws in a two-part webinar on Dec. 11 and 13, 2012, from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. EST.  The format is different from previous years, offering new information for everyone involved in compliance with the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) on federal and federally assisted construction projects.

AGC of America will provide its latest training on federal prevailing wage laws in a two-part webinar on Dec. 11 and 13, 2012, from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. EST.  The format is different from previous years, offering new information for everyone involved in compliance with the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) on federal and federally assisted construction projects.

The first session will address the Top 10 (or so) Pitfalls in Contractor Compliance.  Leading attorney and prevailing wage consultant Deborah Wilder will talk from her experience as president of Contractor Compliance & Monitoring, Inc. about the common problems plaguing construction contractors in compliance with the DBRA and how to avoid them.  She’ll cover such issues as ensuring compliance with flow-down requirements, how to make the conformance process work for you, the right way to complete certified payroll records, dealing with off-site operations, the treatment of truck drivers, and ascertaining the proper classification of your employees.

In the second session, Ask the Experts, a panel of authorities will briefly talk about the latest developments and hottest topics in federal prevailing wage law for construction and then devote the remainder of the session to answering audience questions.  Don’t miss this chance to go beyond the basics and ask the probing questions you have about DBRA.  Speakers will include Wilder along with Tim Helm, chief of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Branch of Government Contracts Enforcement, and Natalie Boan, chief of the Department’s Branch of Construction Wage Determinations.  Ezequiel Arvizu, PHR, HCS, of Sundt Construction will moderate both sessions.

The registration fee for the two-part event is $149 for AGC members or $189 for nonmembers.  Purchase with the just-released 4th edition of AGC’s Davis-Bacon Compliance Manual and receive a discount!  The cost for both the webinar and the manual is just $199 for AGC members or $239 for nonmembers.

Click here for more information and online registration.

For assistance, e-mail meetings@agc.org or call (703) 837-5356.


AGC Webinar Cautions Contractors to Prepare for Increased OFCCP Enforcement

On Nov. 13, 2012, AGC hosted a webinar on Affirmative Action in Employment:  How to Implement the Employment Practices and Procedures Required by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) The webinar provided compliance assistance training and best practices for federal and federally-assisted construction contractors governed by OFCCP, the federal agency responsible for ensuring that those who do business with the federal government take affirmative action and refrain from unlawful discrimination.  The webinar recording is available for purchase in the AGC Bookstore to view on-demand.

On Nov. 13, 2012, AGC hosted a webinar on Affirmative Action in Employment:  How to Implement the Employment Practices and Procedures Required by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) The webinar provided compliance assistance training and best practices for federal and federally-assisted construction contractors governed by OFCCP, the federal agency responsible for ensuring that those who do business with the federal government take affirmative action and refrain from unlawful discrimination.  The webinar recording is available for purchase in the AGC Bookstore to view on-demand.

The webinar, part of AGC’s compliance webinar seriesWalking the Tightrope,” helped many current and future federal construction contractors by providing information necessary to understand the specific requirements of OFCCP in a contractor-friendly manner.  Naomi Hackenberg of WorkPlace HR, LLC, an HR consulting firm specializing in equal employment opportunity and affirmative action matters for federal contractors, stressed to participants that “documentation is key.”  Hackenberg encouraged contractors to immediately implement the requirements of OFCCP’s internet applicant rule and to keep robust applicant tracking logs, including disposition, contact information, and referral sources.  She also added the importance of centralizing recordkeeping efforts when possible, which is sometimes difficult in the construction industry where hiring may occur at each jobsite rather than a central office.    

In response to a quote from OFCCP director Patricia A. Shiu letting contractors know that OFCCP is “going to be extremely proactive and aggressive,” David Fortney, a seasoned labor and employment lawyer with Fortney & Scott, LLC, reminded attendees that OFCCP announced in 2009 that a special emphasis would be placed on auditing the construction industry.  During the webinar, Fortney shared several practical tips for preparing for such audits including the importance of assembling documentation to ensure information provided to OFCCP is accurate and complete.  Fortney added that additional attention should be given to required job site postings and preparing management and workers for the possibility of an on-site interview with an OFCCP official.

For more information on complying with the requirements of OFCCP, visit AGC’s Labor & HR Topical Resources web page.  The primary category is “EEO” and the secondary category is “Affirmative Action.”

The final webinar in the “Walking the Tightrope” series will take place in two sessions to be held Dec. 11 and 13.  The topic is “The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts:  How to Comply with Federal Prevailing Wage Laws.”  For more information, click here.


Contractor Bound to Successor Multiemployer Agreement Despite Effort to End Bargaining Relationship

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that a construction contractor’s efforts to terminate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and withdraw from a multiemployer group were ineffective and that the contractor was bound to a subsequent labor agreement negotiated by the multiemployer association.

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that a construction contractor’s efforts to terminate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and withdraw from a multiemployer group were ineffective and that the contractor was bound to a subsequent labor agreement negotiated by the multiemployer association. 

In September 1997, Carr Finishing Specialties (Carr) joined the Upstate Iron Worker Employers’ Association (the Association) and executed a document (Membership Agreement) designating the Association as the company’s agent in collective bargaining with several locals of the Iron Workers union (the Union).  The Membership Agreement provided that, automatically upon becoming a member of the Association, the member would become a party to all CBAs between the Association and the Union.  It further provided that members of the Association are prohibited from resigning membership less than 90 days prior to the expiration date of an Association CBA.  In May 2006, the Association and the Union executed a CBA for a three-year term with a one-year automatic extension absent four months’ written notice to terminate or modify.  Despite already being bound to the CBA by the terms of the Association membership agreement, Carr signed a “Letter of Assent” agreeing to the terms of the CBA in September 2006.  However, in October 2008, the company stopped applying the CBA.  It provided no notice to the Association or the Union until February 17, 2009 – 72 days before the CBA was set to expire – when it informed the Association and Union that it was withdrawing recognition of the Union and that it was revoking both the Association’s authority to bargain on its behalf and the Letter of Assent.  The Association and the Union later entered into a successor CBA for a three-year term beginning May 1, 2009.  The Board found that Carr violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) not only by repudiating the 2006-2009 CBA during the term of the agreement but also by failing to abide by the 2009-2012 CBA. 

Because the CBAs were 8(f) prehire agreements, Carr could have lawfully withdrawn from the bargaining relationship once the CBA in effect expired had it complied with its other contractual obligations.   (This is distinguishable from 9(a) agreements, which generally require signatory employers to continue to recognize the union even after the agreement has expired or has been properly terminated.  For more information on the difference between 8(f) and 9(a) agreements, visit click here to go to AGC’s Labor & HR Topical Resources library and select the category “Collective Bargaining.”)  However, Carr failed to give timely notice under the terms of the CBA and under the terms the Membership Agreement. 

As the Board noted in the present case, prior decisions clearly establish that “a construction employer may become bound to successive 8(f) contracts…if the employer has expressly given continuing consent to a multiemployer association to bind it to future contracts and the employer has taken no timely or effective action, consistent with its own agreement, to withdraw that continuing consent from the association.”  Precedent also makes clear that a “withdrawal of negotiating authority from a multiemployer association is an action distinct from terminating a contract.” 

The terms of the Membership Agreement unambiguously barred Carr from resigning its membership in, or its delegation of bargaining authority to, the Association during the final 90 days of an Association CBA.  The 2006 CBA was scheduled to expire on April 30, 2009.  Accordingly, Carr was required to give notice of its desire to withdraw no later than January 30, 2009, which it failed to do.  Because its notice was not timely, the Association remained Carr’s bargaining agent and effectively bound Carr to the successor agreement.

The Board commented that its 1994 decision in James Luterbach Construction Co. did not contradict its conclusions here.  In Luterbach, the Board held that an employer bound to an 8(f) agreement by its delegation of bargaining authority to a multiemployer association is not automatically bound to a successor agreement negotiated by the association.  Rather, the employer must engage in an “affirmative act” showing it intends to be bound.  The present Board observed that the Luterbach Board expressly recognized that “there can be cases where the employer has expressly given continuing consent to bargain a successor contract on a multiemployer basis.”  That is what happened here, the Board found.

This case stands as a good reminder to contractors of the importance of carefully following both the law and contractual obligations when withdrawing from a multiemployer association and terminating obligations under a multiemployer CBA.  As noted above, these are two separate acts, and timely notice must be given for each.  Contractors that wish to withdraw an assignment of bargaining rights are well-advised to send notice to both the association and the union:  (a) before the time set forth in the CBA for notification of intent to modify or terminate the agreement, (b) before the next multiemployer negotiations actually begin, and (c) before any deadlines established in any contracts or governing documents of the association (e.g., bylaws) that apply to the contractor.  Certified mail is recommended.  Such notice does not by itself constitute termination of the CBA.  The contractor still must send a letter to the union terminating the CBA within the time frame set forth in the CBA.  A copy should be sent to the association and to the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service as well.  State law may require a copy also be sent to a state agency.  Again, certified mail is recommended.

For more information, please contact AGC Associate General Counsel Denise Gold at goldd@agc.org or (703) 837-5326.



NLRB Validates Job Targeting Program Involving State-Funded Projects

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has reaffirmed its position that union job targeting programs are protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and has clarified that this protection extends even to programs funded in part by voluntary deductions from the wages of workers employed on state-funded public works projects

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has reaffirmed its position that union job targeting programs are protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and has clarified that this protection extends even to programs funded in part by voluntary deductions from the wages of workers employed on state-funded public works projects. 

The case – which has a 20-year history – involves a job targeting program maintained by United Association Local 189 funded by a two-percent Market Recovery Assessment of the gross hourly wages of its members.  The union used the fund to subsidize wages paid by signatory contractors on selected projects, enabling the contractors to bid those jobs based on wage rates lower than the union scale but to still pay their employees the union rate.  J.A. Guy, Inc. (Guy), a signatory contractor, was the successful bidder on two targeted jobs for Pickaway County, Ohio.  J.A. Croson Co. (Croson) was an unsuccessful competitor on both jobs.  Croson filed a lawsuit claiming that Guy’s participation in the job targeting program was unlawful because assessments were taken from employee wages earned on state projects in violation of Ohio’s prevailing wage law.  The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Croson’s lawsuit, finding that it was preempted by the NLRA.  Guy and Local 189 each filed charges against Croson with the NLRB for maintaining the lawsuit.

Past Board decisions have established that job targeting programs like the present one are protected by Section 7 of the NLRA, whether the targeted jobs are public or private.  Questions arise, however, when the source of the funds are wages earned from public jobs, as they may effectively constitute a reduction below the prevailing wage or a “kick-back.”  In a 2000 decision later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Board held that a union commits an unfair labor practice by collecting job targeting assessments from wages earned on Davis-Bacon projects absent the workers’ individualized consent.  The Board distinguished that case from the present one, because, not only were the Pickaway County jobs not covered by Davis-Bacon, there was no evidence that any assessments were taken from earnings on Davis-Bacon jobs.  The Board found that “uniform precedent holding job targeting programs protected, except for projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, compels our conclusion that the program at issue here was clearly protected under the NLRA.” 

After agreeing with the Ohio court that Croson’s lawsuit was preempted by the NLRA, the Board further found that the bringing of the lawsuit violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because it interfered with protected activity (i.e., operation of the job targeting program).  In determining the remedy, the Board considered whether to follow its typical approach and require Croson to reimburse the opposing party’s legal fees and expenses.  Under the circumstances, it chose not to do so and merely ordered Croson to cease and desist in prosecuting its already-completed lawsuit and to post a remedial notice.

J.A. Croson Company, 359 NLRB No. 2 (9/28/12).


Year-to-Date Collective Bargaining Negotiations Yield Higher First-Year Increases Than in 2011

Collective bargaining negotiations in the construction industry settled between January and September of this year resulted in an average first-year wage-and-benefits increase of $1.01 or 2.2 percent, according to the latest Settlements Report issued by the AGC-supported Construction Labor Research Council.  For newly negotiated multi-year contracts, the average second-year increase was $1.12 or 2.4 percent, and the average third-year increase was $1.10 or 2.3 percent.  As percentages, the averages negotiated for contract years one and two are higher than averages for those contract years negotiated throughout 2011, but the average for year three is higher than in 2011.  In straight dollar amounts, the new average increase is higher than in 2011 for year one but is lower for years two and three.  Negotiation of zero-percent increases was less common this year than last year.

Collective bargaining negotiations in the construction industry settled between January and September of this year resulted in an average first-year wage-and-benefits increase of $1.01 or 2.2 percent, according to the latest Settlements Report issued by the AGC-supported Construction Labor Research Council.  For newly negotiated multi-year contracts, the average second-year increase was $1.12 or 2.4 percent, and the average third-year increase was $1.10 or 2.3 percent.  As percentages, the averages negotiated for contract years one and two are higher than averages for those contract years negotiated throughout 2011, but the average for year three is higher than in 2011.  In straight dollar amounts, the new average increase is higher than in 2011 for year one but is lower for years two and three.  Negotiation of zero-percent increases was less common this year than last year.

The trend toward negotiation of contracts for a shorter duration, which began when the market downturn took hold in 2008, has continued so far this year but appears to be slowing down.  Of the settlements reported so far this year, 51 percent are for one year and 40 percent are for three years or longer.

In a second report recently issued by CLRC called the Wage and Fringe Benefits Settlements Analysis, CLRC advises that, for craft-weighted results, 33 percent of the increase negotiated in 2011 was applied toward wages.  That percentage grew to 45 percent in negotiations settled between January and September of 2012.  CLRC found that 27 percent of the increase negotiated in 2011 was allocated for health-and-welfare funds and 39 percent to pension funds.  These data compare to 16 percent to health-and-welfare and 38 percent to pensions as of September in 2012.  “Craft-weighted” indicates that an average was taken of the results for the 15 crafts represented in the study so that each craft counts as 1/15th of the result; each craft is weighted the same regardless of how many settlements were analyzed for that craft.

Looking at settlement-weighted results, 32 percent of the increase negotiated in 2011 was applied to wages, 22 percent to health-and-welfare, and 46 percent to pensions.  In 2012, as of September, 34 percent of the increase was allocated to wages, 16 percent to health-and-welfare, and 49 percent to pensions.  “Settlement-weighted” means that an average was taken of all settlements so that each settlement was weighted the same, without equal consideration of the crafts involved.

To read the complete reports, which contain additional data and charts, use the links above, or go to AGC’s online Labor & HR Topical Resources library at www.agc.org/topicalresources and select from the pull-down menus main category “Collective Bargaining” and subcategory “Collective Bargaining Agreements Data.”

 


USCIS Provides Guidance for Employers with DACA Beneficiaries

On Nov. 19, 2012, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released guidance instructing employers on the proper way to complete the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, Form I-9, for new and existing employees who participate in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as “DACA.”

On Nov. 19, 2012, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released guidance instructing employers on the proper way to complete the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, Form I-9, for new and existing employees who participate in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as “DACA.”  

The two-page guidance document addresses many questions from employers regarding the treatment of DACA beneficiaries with regard to completing Form I-9.  Perhaps the most beneficial information pertains to the treatment of existing employees.  For example, the document addresses when an employer should complete a new Form I-9 for existing employees, as well as when an employer should complete section three of Form I-9.  Section three is often a confusing section of the form for employers.  The guidance provides additional instructions for companies that use E-Verify. 

Implemented in August 2012, the DACA program allows certain undocumented immigrants who came into the U.S. before age sixteen to gain temporary relief from deportation and obtain work authorization.  The program is expected to benefit as many as 1.76 million unauthorized immigrants, of which 58 percent are currently working. 

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services division of DHS has posted frequently asked questions about DACA on its website.  For additional information on immigration compliance for employers, visit AGC’s Labor & HR Topical Resources webpage.  The primary category is “Other Legal Issues” and the secondary category is “Immigration and Employment Eligibility.”


Wage and Hour Laws in the Wake of a Natural Disaster

Whether it’s an earthquake, blizzard, bush fire or hurricane, sometimes Mother Nature unexpectedly interrupts the flow of the work week.   As government officials and disaster recovery experts encourage workers to stay home, companies are left to determine if and how employees will be compensated when a company or project is shut down, during and immediately following a natural disaster.

Whether it’s an earthquake, blizzard, bush fire or hurricane, sometimes Mother Nature unexpectedly interrupts the flow of the work week.   As government officials and disaster recovery experts encourage workers to stay home, companies are left to determine if and how employees will be compensated when a company or project is shut down, during and immediately following a natural disaster. 

A 2010 Fact Sheet published by the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division provides guidance to employers regarding compensation during natural disasters and recovery.  The guidance explains that employers are only required to pay covered, non-exempt employees “no less than the federal minimum wage for each hour actually worked and overtime at one and one-half times an employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours actually worked in excess of 40 in a week.”  It further explains that “these requirements are not subject to waiver during natural disasters and recovery efforts.”  So, while some employers choose to pay non-exempt workers for the time the company is closed, the company is not required to do so.

The guidance also answers five additional questions that employers may face during a natural disaster such as:

  1. How do employees receive their last paycheck, and how soon must they be paid if they worked the week prior to the disaster and the employer is now closed?
  2. How many hours is an employer obligated to pay an hourly-paid employee who works a partial week because the employer’s business closed as a result of the disaster?
  3. Can workers receive unemployment compensation while they are out of work?
  4. If individuals volunteer services to a public agency, are they entitled to compensation? and
  5. If individuals volunteer services to a private, not-for-profit organization, are they entitled to compensation?

Although not listed in the guidance document, the FLSA rules are a little different for exempt employees, those who are paid on a salary basis and meet other tests exempting them from  overtime pay.  According to DOL Fact Sheet #17G, “an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work, regardless of the number of days or hours worked,” unless no work is performed for the entire workweek.  Employers should exercise additional precautions with regard to state laws that may require compensation for being “on-call” or being turned away after reporting to work, among other things.

For more information on the FLSA, visit DOL’s website.  Additional information may be found on AGC’s Labor and HR Topical Resources webpage. The primary category is “Compensation” and the secondary category is “Fair Labor Standards Act.”


Background Investigations Require Revised Form Beginning in January 2013

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has taken over enforcement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  As a result, beginning Jan. 1, 2013, employers must use updated Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) notices to reflect the change.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has taken over enforcement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  As a result, beginning Jan. 1, 2013, employers must use updated Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) notices to reflect the change.

In 2011, after the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB was created and given the responsibility of overseeing the regulations governing the FCRA.  Shortly after, the CFPB issued new regulations which, among other things, modified the Summary of Your Rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act form that employers must use to notify employees and applicants of their rights.  There are no substantive changes to the form, other than the replacement of “FTC” with “CFPB.”

The FCRA regulates employers who use third party organizations to conduct background investigations prior to or during employment.  According to the FCRA, before an employer may conduct a background investigation, the employer must obtain consent, in writing, from the applicant or employee, and must provide certain information including the reason for the investigation.   After the report is obtained, the FCRA requires employers to take additional steps when any adverse employment action is taken, such as refusing to hire an applicant or terminating an employee’s position because of information obtained in the report.  For example, prior to taking adverse action, employers must provide the applicant or employee with a copy of the background report and a summary of the individual’s rights under the FCRA.  After taking adverse action, the employer is required to provide, in writing, a second notice with information about the third party agency that provided the background information.

For additional information on the new CFPB, visit www.consumerfinance.gov.



AGC’s Annual HR & TED Conferences Continue to Provide the Best Industry-Focused Professional Development for HR and Training Professionals

AGC’s 2012 HR Professionals and Training, Education & Development (TED) Conferences wrapped up Oct. 18 after three-and-a-half days of education, sharing of best practices and networking in San Antonio, Texas.  The co-located conferences, which ran back-to-back, continue to be a must-attend event for HR and training professionals in the construction industry.

AGC’s 2012 HR Professionals and Training, Education & Development (TED) Conferences wrapped up Oct. 18 after three-and-a-half days of education, sharing of best practices and networking in San Antonio, Texas.  The co-located conferences, which ran back-to-back, continue to be a must-attend event for HR and training professionals in the construction industry.

The TED Conference got the week off to a great start.  In the opening session, Training is for Dogs: How to Use the Latest Neuroscience and Learning Techniques to Create True Behavioral Change, presenter Brent Darnell was entertaining and engaging as he demonstrated techniques such as improvisation, storytelling, and the use of the human senses to revitalize training in the classroom.  In another session, Construction industry training and HR expert Kris Talynn of Okland Construction shared best practices for developing effective job aids as well as tips for diagnosing the root causes and possible solutions for performance problems in the workplace.  A highlight of the TED Conference was a panel session called “Creatively Filling the Gap.”  During this session, Todd Hess of Todd Hess Building, Laura Cataldo of AGC of Wisconsin, Katie Igoe of Turner Construction, and Ron Kubitz of Brayman Construction all shared best practices for developing and recruiting the construction industry’s future workforce.  Additional TED sessions focused on informal learning, using social media to extend the classroom to the field, and more. 

Both conferences were connected with an overlapping joint keynote address by Joe Gerstandt on Putting Authenticity, Integrity and Daring to Work.  During this professional development session, Gerstandt dared attendees to be different by bringing their “whole self” to work, including quirky habits and personality traits.  He explained that doing so can help one grow both personally and professionally. 

During the HR Professionals Conference, AGC HR Forum steering committee member, Shannon Rowley shared with the group her company’s experience dealing with a jobsite fatality.  In the same session, John Martin of Flintco Construction and Bob Vandepol of the Crisis Care Network took a tag team approach to explaining how to handle a construction company crisis.  Martin expressed the importance of facilitating re-occurring training on the jobsite, including the use of mock drills and skits, in order to create familiarity during a real crisis.   He also demonstrated Flintco’s new emergency response app for smartphones, which he says has replaced the need for workers to search for emergency procedures in binders and/or pocket cards during a crisis.  Vandepol, concluded the session by sharing tips for dealing with the media, family members and employees after a crisis occurs. 

In addition to engaging roundtable sessions on how to thrive in an HR department of one, partnering with AGC chapters on local and state employment matters and making 360 evaluations work, other presenter-led sessions for the HR Professionals Conference addressed issues related to background checks and pre-employment screening, conflict management, creating a talent development program, and conducting a comprehensive self-audit.   

AGC held its second Federal Construction HR Workshop following the HR Professionals Conference.  Attorney and former administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL), Tammy McCutchen, kicked-off the workshop with a session to help attendees understand and respond to DOL’s “attack” on the construction industry. 

The workshop included a much anticipated panel discussion on meeting the goals set forth by DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).  During the session, Ron Kubitz shared tips for recruiting veterans into the industry.  Kubitz explained to the HR professionals their responsibility in ensuring that a candidate’s military work experience is clearly translated and explained to hiring managers in construction-industry terms.  Kubitz stated, “It is our job as HR professionals to educate [hiring managers].”  Bridget Booth, a career employee of Clark Construction, shared best practices for recruiting and retaining women in the industry.  Booth’s suggestions included partnering with day care centers that provide 24-hour service near job sites in order to accommodate shift workers, as well as providing free membership for female employees to join organizations such as the National Association for Women in Construction, which Booth credits with helping her to survive in the male-dominated construction industry.    

The workshop ended with several sessions related to the Davis-Bacon Act.  AGC’s Tamika Carter encouraged attendees to participate in Davis-Bacon wage surveys to “do [their] part to ensure that wages are accurately reflected in Davis-Bacon wage determinations.”  Then, attorney David Fortney of Fortney & Scott, LLP, shared several Davis-Bacon-related cases that contractors should be aware of, including one case where the prime contractor failed to flow down Davis-Bacon clauses in subcontractor contracts.  That case resulted in the payment of back wages by the prime contractor of nearly $1 million to the subcontractor’s employees. 

AGC’s Davis-Bacon Compliance Manual for Federal and Federally Assisted Construction – Fourth Edition was unveiled during the closing session by the author and speaker, Deborah Wilder.

The conferences were sponsored by the National Center for Construction Education & Research, PAS, Inc., eMars, Workplace HR, Lands’ End, ClickSafety, and ERS Group.

Planning for the 2013 conferences is underway, so stay tuned for more details.


For more information or to contact us directly, please visit agc.org | © AGC, 2004 – All rights reserved