Published: September 10, 2008 10:05 pm         

Rainelle official says ex-workers not due back pay

Rainelle’s town recorder is questioning the legality of a recent state Division of Labor investigation which found the town owes two former employees more than $49,000 in back pay for failing to pay prevailing wages.

A July 23 letter sent to Recorder Pete Adams from state Wage and Hour Director Larry Walker highlighted the prevailing wage investigation conducted by compliance officer William Wade.

“The results of that investigation are reflected in the enclosed audit, which finds they (workers) are owed prevailing wages in the amount of $49,396.92,” Walker wrote.

Walker also detailed several options the town had, such as scheduling a meeting to “review the audit,” legal remedies and how the audit could be “contested” under state law. The letter was “not a demand for payment,” he wrote.

The letter was accompanied by a detailed audit concerning construction work completed by two individuals in 2006 and 2007 under then-Mayor Eugene McKenzie, Adams said Wednesday.

According to the secretary of state’s web site, the Division of Labor sets separate prevailing wage rates for all 55 counties at the beginning of each year. Greenbrier County’s rate for a Class 1 laborer was $20.10 per hour in 2007, with fringe benefits of $9.62 per hour. By law, this is the rate mandated for workers employed by any public agency involved in public improvement projects.

The workers in question were paid about $10 per hour from two state grants totaling $85,000 used to revamp Rainelle’s town hall and another town project, Adams said.

“In 2004 after I took office as mayor, we were audited and had to pay $56,000 in back pay for prevailing wages,” Adams said. “Now another audit is saying we owe $49,000, but I disagree with that. The two workers were hired explicitly as part-time employees and they are not required by law to be paid prevailing wages.”

Adams released a Sept. 3 letter to The Register-Herald from Rainelle town lawyer J. Michael Anderson which backs up his claim the town should not ante up the back pay.

“My research reveals that the Town of Rainelle is not obligated to pay prevailing wages,” Anderson wrote, “ ... if the employees who performed the work on the project were employed or hired by the (town) on a regular basis, employed or hired by the (town) on a temporary basis, employed or hired by the (town) to perform temporary repairs, or employed or hired to perform emergency repairs.”

Anderson cited a June 2006 state Supreme Court decision arising from a Tucker County Solid Waste Authority wage dispute as the basis for why Rainelle should not held liable for the $49,396.

Adams said he has requested a hearing date with state labor officials concerning the back wages, but no date had been set as of Wednesday.

“I also question whether or not the town legally was forced to pay prevailing wages in 2004 as well,” Adams said by phone. “We should be allowed to get that money back.”

The investigating compliance officer in the 2006-07 case, Wade, was unable to comment when reached by phone Wednesday.

— E-mail:

cgiggenbach@register-herald.com