| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, Secretary of Labor in 1952, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a construction company and the Department of Labor regarding wage rates for workers under federal contracts. The issue arose when Alstate Construction Company was contracted to build housing units at an Air Force base but failed to pay their employees according to predetermined minimum wages set by the Secretary of Labor as required by law (the Davis-Bacon Act). When this violation was discovered, funds were withheld from payments due to Alstate until they complied with these requirements. In response, Alstate sued arguing that such withholding violated their rights under Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and contended that they should have been given notice and opportunity for hearing before any action was taken against them. The Supreme Court disagreed with Alstate’s argument stating that there is no requirement for prior notice or hearing before taking administrative action like withholding contract payments in order to enforce compliance with statutory obligations related to wage rates under federal contracts.
In the dissenting opinion for Allstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, it was argued that the Secretary of Labor did not have jurisdiction over a dispute between an employer and its employees regarding wage rates under the Davis-Bacon Act. The dissenting justices believed that this law only gave authority to determine prevailing wages in localities where federal construction projects were taking place, but not to resolve disputes about what those wages should be on specific contracts. They contended that such matters should be left up to negotiation between employers and workers or their representatives, rather than being dictated by government officials who may lack sufficient knowledge of industry conditions and standards. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse of power if administrative agencies were allowed unchecked discretion in interpreting laws and regulations.