Midwest Maintenance, the contracting company responsible for the Shively Hall renovation project, is refuting allegations brought in a lawsuit last week by a sheet-metal workers' union.
The contracting company denies any wrongdoing and states that it paid its employees more than the prevailing-wage rate for roofers on the project, said Jill A. May, the attorney representing Midwest Maintenance, in a statement.
The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 24, filed the lawsuit Jan. 13. The lawsuit alleges that Midwest Maintenance prepared certified payroll reports ... that did not comply with law and violated prevailing-wage law by knowingly underpay(ing) and misclassifying workers on the project, according to the suit.
The union claims Midwest Maintenance listed sheet-metal workers as roofers, which led to lower pay for those employees, according to the lawsuit. Midwest Maintenance says the work involved in the project was properly classified as roofer work
according to May's statement.
Midwest Maintenance also denies allegations that it underpaid employees on the project, stating it in fact paid its employees substantially more than the prevailing-wage rate established for roofers on the project according to May's statement.
A representative for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 24, maintains that the union's allegations are legitimate.
The suit has been filed and we feel that (Midwest Maintenance) mis-paid their workers and that the truth will come out
said Charlie Whitt, business representative for the local union. The prevailing-wage laws are there to protect the employees
and we're looking out for the employees. We want everyone to be on even playing field.
The union is ordering Midwest Maintenance to issue back pay, plus an additional 25 percent, to the affected workers and pay a penalty equaling 75 percent of the back-pay amount to the Ohio Department of Commerce director, according to the lawsuit. The union is also requesting an order banning Midwest Maintenance from working with any public authority for the construction of a public improvement for one year, according to the suit. The documents did not list the amount of back pay requested or how much pay workers originally received.
@ThePostCampus
1
News
Pamela Engel
