(a) The Act, in section 3(a), provides that any violations of any of the contract stipulations required by sections 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2), or 2(b) of the Act, shall render the party responsible liable for the amount of any deductions, rebates, refunds, or underpayments (which includes non-payment) of compensation due to any employee engaged in the performance of the contract. So much of the accrued payments due either on the contract or on any other contract (whether subject to the Service Contract Act or not) between the same contractor and the Government may be withheld in a deposit fund as is necessary to pay the employees. In the case of requirements-type contracts, it is the contracting agency, and not the using agencies, which has the responsibility for complying with a withholding request by the Secretary or authorized representative. The Act further provides that on order of the Secretary (or authorized representatives), any compensation which the head of the Federal agency or the Secretary has found to be due shall be paid directly to the underpaid employees from any accrued payments withheld. In order to effectuate the efficient administration of this provision of the Act, such withheld funds shall be transferred to the Department of Labor for disbursement to the underpaid employees on order of the Secretary or his or her authorized representatives, an Administrative Law Judge, or the Administrative Review Board, and are not paid directly to such employees by the contracting agency without the express prior consent of the Department of Labor. (See Decision of the Comptroller General, B-170784, February 17, 1971.) It is mandatory for a contracting officer to adhere to a request from the Department of Labor to withhold funds where such funds are available. (See Decision of the Comptroller General, B-109257, October 14, 1952, arising under the Walsh-Healey Act.) Contract funds which are or may become due a contractor under any contract with the United States may be withheld prior to the institution of administrative proceedings by the Secretary. (McCasland v. U.S. Postal Service, 82 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 33,607 (N.D. N.Y. 1977); G & H Machinery Co. v. Donovan, 96 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 34,354 (S.D. Ill. 1982).)

Ask an employment law question, get an answer ASAP!
Thousands of highly rated, verified employment lawyers
Specialties include: Employment Law, EEOC, Pension and Compensation, Harassment Law, Discrimination Law, Termination Law, General Legal and more.
Click here to chat with a lawyer about your rights.

(b) Priority to withheld funds. The Comptroller General has afforded employee wage claims priority over an Internal Revenue Service levy for unpaid taxes. (See Decisions of the Comptroller General, B-170784, February 17, 1971; B-189137, August 1, 1977; 56 Comp. Gen. 499 (1977); 55 Comp. Gen. 744 (1976), arising under the Davis-Bacon Act; B-178198, August 30, 1973; B-161460, May 25, 1967.)

(1) As the Comptroller General has stated, “[t]he legislative histories of these labor statutes [Service Contract Act and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, 41 U.S.C. § 327, et seq.] disclose a progressive tendency to extend a more liberal interpretation and construction in successive enactments with regard to worker’s benefits, recovery and repayment of wage underpayments. Further, as remedial legislation, it is axiomatic that they are to be liberally construed”. (Decision of the Comptroller General, B-170784, February 17, 1971.)

(2) Since section 3(a) of the Act provides that accrued contract funds withheld to pay employees wages must be held in a deposit fund, it is the position of the Department of Labor that monies so held may not be used or set aside for agency reprocurement costs. To hold otherwise would be inequitable and contrary to public policy, since the employees have performed work from which the Government has received the benefit (see National Surety Corporation v. U.S., 132 Ct. Cl. 724, 728, 135 F. Supp. 381 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 902), and to give contracting agency reprocurement claims priority would be to require employees to pay for the breach of contract between the employer and the agency. The Comptroller General has sanctioned priority being afforded wage underpayments over the reprocurement costs of the contracting agency following a contractor’s default or termination for cause. Decision of the Comptroller General, B-167000, June 26, 1969; B-178198, August 30, 1973; and B-189137, August 1, 1977.

(3) Wage claims have priority over reprocurement costs and tax liens without regard to when the competing claims were raised. See Decisions of the Comptroller General, B-161460, May 25, 1967; B-189137, August 1, 1977.

(4) Wages due workers underpaid on the contract have priority over any assignee of the contractor, including assignments made under the Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 203, 41 U.S.C. § 15, to funds withheld under the contract, since an assignee can acquire no greater rights to withheld funds than the assignor has in the absence of an assignment. See Modern Industrial Bank v. U.S., 101 Ct. Cl. 808 (1944); Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 46, 371 F. 2d 462 (1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 833; Newark Insurance Co. v. U.S., 149 Ct. Cl. 170, 181 F. Supp. 246 (1960); Henningsen v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 208 U.S. 404 (1908). Where employees have been underpaid, the assignor has no right to assign funds since the assignor has no property rights to amounts withheld from the contract to cover underpayments of workers which constitute a violation of the law and the terms, conditions, and obligations under the contract. (Decision of the Comptroller General, B-164881, August 14, 1968; B-178198, August 30, 1973; 56 Comp. Gen. 499 (1977); 55 Comp. Gen. 744 (1976); The National City Bank of Evansville v. United States, 143 Ct. Cl. 154, 163 F. Supp. 846 (1958); National Surety Corporation v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 724, 135 F. Supp. 381 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 902.)

(5) The Comptroller General, recognizing that unpaid laborers have an equitable right to be paid from contract retainages, has also held that wage underpayments under the Act have priority over any claim by the trustee in bankruptcy. 56 Comp. Gen. 499 (1977), citing Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Company, 371 U.S. 132 (1962); Hadden v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 529 (1955), in which the courts gave priority to sureties who had paid unpaid laborers over the trustee in bankruptcy.

(c) Section 5(b) of the Act provides that if the accrued payments withheld under the terms of the contract are insufficient to reimburse all service employees with respect to whom there has been a failure to pay the compensation required pursuant to the Act, the United States may bring action against the contractor, subcontractor, or any sureties in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover the remaining amount of underpayments. The Service Contract Act is not subject to the statute of limitations in the Portal to Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 255, and contains no prescribed period within which such an action must be instituted; it has therefore been held that the general period of six years prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2415 applies to such actions, United States of America v. Deluxe Cleaners and Laundry, Inc., 511 F. 2d 929 (C.A. 4, 1975). Any sums thus recovered by the United States shall be held in the deposit fund and shall be paid, on the order of the Secretary, directly to the underpaid employees. Any sum not paid to an employee because of inability to do so within 3 years shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

(d) Releases or waivers executed by employees for unpaid wages and fringe benefits due them are without legal effect. As stated by the Supreme Court in Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 704, (1945), arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

“Where a private right is granted in the public interest to effectuate a legislative policy, waiver of a right so charged or colored with the public interest will not be allowed where it would thwart the legislative policy which it was designed to effectuate.”

See also Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946); United States v. Morley Construction Company, 98 F. 2d 781 (C.A. 2, 1938), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 651.Further, as noted above, monies not paid to employees to whom they are due because of violation are covered into the U.S. Treasury as provided by section 5(b) of the Act.

(e)(1) The term party responsible for violations in section 3(a) of the Act is the same term as contained in the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, and therefore, the same principles are applied under both Acts. An officer of a corporation who actively directs and supervises the contract performance, including employment policies and practices and the work of the employees working on the contract, is a party responsible and liable for the violations, individually and jointly with the company (S & G Coal Sales, Inc., Decision of the Hearing Examiner, PC-946, January 21, 1965, affirmed by the Administrator June 8, 1965; Tennessee Processing Co., Inc., Decision of the Hearing Examiner, PC-790, September 28, 1965).

(2) The failure to perform a statutory public duty under the Service Contract Act is not only a corporate liability but also the personal liability of each officer charged by reason of his or her corporate office while performing that duty. United States v. Sancolmar Industries, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 404, 408 (E.D. N.Y. 1972). Accordingly, it has been held by administrative decisions and by the courts that the term party responsible, as used in section 3(a) of the Act, imposes personal liability for violations of any of the contract stipulations required by sections 2(a)(1) and (2) and 2(b) of the Act on corporate officers who control, or are responsible for control of, the corporate entity, as they, individually, have an obligation to assure compliance with the requirements of the Act, the regulations, and the contracts. See, for example, Waite, Inc., Decision of the ALJ, SCA 530-566, October 19, 1976, Spruce-Up Corp., Decision of the Administrator SCA 368-370, August 19, 1976, Ventilation and Cleaning Engineers, Inc., Decision of the ALJ, SCA 176, August 23, 1973, Assistant Secretary, May 17, 1974, Secretary, September 27, 1974; Fred Van Elk, Decision of the ALJ, SCA 254-58, May 28, 1974, Administrator, November 25, 1974; Murcole, Inc., Decision of the ALJ, SCA 195-198, April 11, 1974; Emile J. Bouchet, Decision of the ALJ, SCA 38, February 24, 1970; Darwyn L. Grover, Decision of the ALJ, SCA 485, August 15, 1976; United States v. Islip Machine Works, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. N.Y. 1959); United States v. Sancolmar Industries, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. N.Y. 1972).

(3) In essence, individual liability attaches to the corporate official who is responsible for, and therefore causes or permits, the violation of the contract stipulations required by the Act, i.e., corporate officers who control the day-to-day operations and management policy are personally liable for underpayments because they cause or permit violations of the Act.

(4) It has also been held that the personal responsibility and liability of individuals for violations of the Act is not limited to the officers of a contracting firm or to signatories to the Government contract who are bound by and accept responsibility for compliance with the Act and imposition of its sanctions set forth in the contract clauses in § 4.6, but includes all persons, irrespective of proprietary interest, who exercise control, supervision, or management over the performance of the contract, including the labor policy or employment conditions regarding the employees engaged in contract performance, and who, by action or inaction, cause or permit a contract to be breached. U.S. v. Islip Machine Works, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. N.Y. 1959); U.S. v. Sancolmar Industries, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. N.Y. 1972); Oscar Hestrom Corp., Decision of the Administrator, PC-257, May 7, 1946, affirmed, U.S. v. Hedstrom, 8 Wage Hour Cases 302 (N.D. Ill. 1948); Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp., Decision of the Administrator, PC-330, October 3, 1947; Reynolds Research Corp., Decision of the Administrator, PC-381, October 24, 1951; Etowah Garment Co., Inc., Decision of the Hearing Examiner, PC-632, August 9, 1957, Decision of the Administrator, April 29, 1958; Cardinal Fuel and Supply Co., Decision of the Hearing Examiner, PC-890, June 17, 1963.

(5) Reliance on advice from contracting agency officials (or Department of Labor officials without the authority to issue rulings under the Act) is not a defense against a contractor’s liability for back wages under the Act. Standard Fabrication Ltd., Decision of the Secretary, PC-297, August 3, 1948; Airport Machining Corp., Decision of the ALJ, PC-1177, June 15, 1973; James D. West, Decision of the ALJ, SCA 397-398, November 17, 1975; Metropolitan Rehabilitation Corp., WAB Case No. 78-25, August 2, 1979; Fry Brothers Corp., WAB Case No. 76-6, June 14, 1977.

(f) The procedures for a contractor or subcontractor to dispute findings regarding violations of the Act, including back wage liability or the disposition of funds withheld by the agency for such liability, are contained in parts 6 and 8 of this title. Appeals in such matters have not been delegated to the contracting agencies and such matters cannot be appealed under the disputes clause in the contractor’s contract.

(g) While the Act provides that action may be brought against a surety to recover underpayments of compensation, there is no statutory provision requiring that contractors furnish either payment or performance bonds before an award can be made. The courts have held, however, that when such a bond has been given, including one denominated as a performance rather than payment bond, and such a bond guarantees that the principal shall fulfill “all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements” of the contract, or similar words to the same effect, the surety-guarantor is jointly liable for underpayments by the contractor of the wages and fringe benefits required by the Act up to the amount of the bond. U.S. v. Powers Building Maintenance Co., 366 F. Supp. 819 (W.D. Okla. 1972); U.S. v. Gillespie, 72 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 33,986 (C.D. Cal. 1973) U.S. v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 279 F. Supp. 236 (E.D. Tenn. 1967); United States v. Hudgins-Dize Co., 83 F. Supp. 593 (E.D. Va. 1949); U.S. v. Continental Casualty Company, 85 F. Supp. 573 (E.D. Pa. 1949), affirmed per curiam, 182 F.2d 941 (3rd Cir. 1950).