Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. Davis-Paige Management Systems, LLC (Board decision, September 4, 2024)

Plain-English summary

An administrative judge found that Davis-Paige Management Systems and Michael Davis failed to pay Service Contract Act wage rates and fringe benefits. Under 29 C.F.R. § 6.20, they had forty days to seek Board review or request more time, making March 9, 2024 the deadline. They did not request an extension until July 5. The Board denied that request, explained that it would address timeliness if an actual late petition were filed, and then administratively closed the matter because no petition was before it.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 41 U.S.C. § 6701; 29 C.F.R. § 6.20; 29 C.F.R. § 26.3(a)(6)
• Outcome: Matter administratively closed after denial of a late extension request and no petition for review.
• Key point: An extension request filed months after the SCA review deadline does not itself place a petition for review before the Board.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

IN THE MATTER OF:

ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND
ARB CASE NO. 2024-0053
HOUR DIVISION, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ALJ CASE NO. 2019-SCA-00003
LABOR,
ALJ THEODORE W. ANNOS

PROSECUTING PARTY, DATE: September 4, 2024
v.

DAVIS-PAIGE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS, LLC,
and

MICHAEL DAVIS,

RESPONDENTS.

Before WARREN and ROLFE, Administrative Appeals Judges

ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

PER CURIAM:

This proceeding arises under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act of 1965, (SCA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 6701-6707, and the implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R.
Parts 4 and 6. On January 29, 2024, a United States Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision and Order finding that Respondents Davis-Paige Management Systems, LLC and Michael Davis violated the SCA by failing to pay its employees the SCA-required wage rates and fringe benefits.
Respondents had 40 days after the date of the decision “or such additional time as is granted by the Administrative Review Board” to file a petition for review. 29 C.F.R.
§ 6.20. Respondents thus had until March 9, 2024, to file a timely petition for review or timely request an extension to file.
2

On July 5, 2024, Respondents filed a Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Appeal Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 26.3(a)(6) (Motion), which was administratively assigned ARB Case No. 2024-0053. The Board denied the Motion on July 25, 2024, explaining that the Board would rule on the acceptance of any late-filed petition for review consistent with the applicable regulations and ARB precedent, if one was filed. The Board thus orders that this matter be administratively closed.

SO ORDERED.

______
IVEY S. WARREN
Administrative Appeals Judge

______
JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge