U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
November 7, 1960
MEMORANDUM #19
TO: AGENCIBS ADMINISTERING SATUTES REFERRED TO IN 29 CFR,
SUBTITLE A, PART 5.
FROM: Harold C. Nyastrom
Acting Solicitor of Labor
SUBJECT: Proper ratio of apprentices to journeymen to be employed
on projects subject to the labor standards provisions of
the Davis-Bacon and related Acts.
For your information and guidance, I am attaching copies
of two recent opinions clarifying our position with respect to the
allowable ratio of apprentices to journeymen on Federal or Federally-
assisted construction work. These opinions are intended to supple-
ment previous copies of coverage opinions distributed to assist you
in achieving effective compliance with applicable labor standards in
contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon and related Acts.
Attachments

305a
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
Mr. Fred R. Wolford
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Labor Relations Branch
Public Housing Administration
Housing and Home Finance Agency
Washington 25, D. C,
Re: Westport Homes
PHA Project Md-2-13
Baltimore, Md.
E-60-298, 299, 899
E-61-302 & 427
Dear Mr. Wolford:
This is in further reference to your letters of July 18
and September 16, 1960, and to the conference of August 11, 1960,
with counsel for subcontractor McKewin, and subsequent informal
correspondence between our respective Offices, concerning labor
standards compliance matters involving various contractors en-
gaged on the above project,
It appears from the limited record available, that two
tires who performed construction work on this project, namely,
Gordon H. McKewin, Mechanical Contractors, and Landergreen Painting
& Decorating Company, Inc., employed apprentices during the con-
struction of the subject project who, although apparently properly
registered, and apparently employed within the contractors' over-
all allowable ratios, could have been found (at least in some work-
weeks) to have been employed jus this job and in relationship to the
number of journeymen employed by these contractors on this job, in
a ratio disproportionate within the meaning of Regulations, Part 5,
When this matter was called to the contractor*a attention, his an-
swer was to the effect that his overall ratio was proper and that
nothing in the contract or one Regulations, Part 5, required that
his overall ratio be maintained on any particular job.
As you and the General Counsel of the Public Housing
Administration have called to our attention in connection with
the apprentice irregularities here charged, our Regulations and
the standard contract provisions do not appear to sufficiently
clarity the meaning of the term "disproportionate ratio of ap-
prentices" as contained in Section 5.6(e) of Regulations, Part 5,

Mr. Fred R. Wolford    Page 2
although our widely distributed bulletin on "Employment of Ap-
prentices on Federal or Federally Assisted Construction Projects"
does define this phrase. In the latter publication, under the
heading "Disproportionate Employment - Ratio", it ia stated in
reference to Section 5.6(e) of Regulations, Part 5:
"To meet the requirements of these Regulations, the
allowable ratio of apprentices to skilled workers permitted to
work on a covered project or job shall not be greater than the
ratio allowed the contractor as to his entire work force,"
While we appreciate the fact that neither Regulations,
Part 5, nor the standard contact labor provisions, set forth no
explicitly as the above-quoted language our traditional views on
allowable ratio of apprentices, there is no question that through
the years this Department and contracting agencies generally have
required contractors' apprentice ration to be maintained on a job
basis when such jobs have been subject to the labor standards pro-
visions of the Davie-Bacon and related Acts. The underlying reasons
for this well established position are readily obvious and may be
summed up by stating that, although we and the contracting agencies
fully appreciate the necessity of promoting bona fide apprentice,
ship goals, we likewise realize the necessity of achieving the basic
objective of the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, namely, the protec-
tion of-local labor standards. Pursuant to this dual objective,
the agencies and we have an obligation to guard against covered
jobs being performed substantially by workers paid at substandard
wages under the guise of any alleged apprenticeship program which,
under these circumstances of utilizing on excessive ratio of ap-
prentices, would not in fact be deemed for enforcement purposes a
"bona fde apprenticeship program" within the meaning of Regulations,.
Part 5, or of the terms of the contract.
. In this connection, we recently had occasion to write the
Compliance Division of the housing and Home Finance Agency with re-
spect to a covered project where, although the allowable ratio under
the applicable standards provided for one apprentice to two journey-
men, the contractor over a sustained period of performance regularly
worked an average of up to five apprentices to one journeyman. In
that case, we advised that, since the ratio of apprentices bore no
resemblance to the allowable ratio, it could not be concluded that
the apprentices were employed under a "bona tide apprenticeship prow
gram" within the meaning of Section 5.5(a)(4) of Regulations, Part 5,

Mr. Fred R. Wolford   Page 3
and, since none of the apprentices in question could be deemed
bona tide apprentices whose employment may be permitted under
the Regulations and contract terms, all so classified were en-
titled to restitution at the applicable journeyman's rate for
the craft work performed. 
As you know, the allowable ratio we here speak of,
and which, as we have explained, must be maintained on an in-
dividual covered job basis, will be found under apprentice pro-
grams supervised by a Joint Apprenticeship Committee represent-
ing the participating contractors and local unions in the stand
ards or collective bargaining agreement incorporated by refer-
ence into the Apprenticeship Agreement entered into by the ap-
prentice and the Committee. In the case of a non-joint-program,
such as is apparently the case here involved, the allowable ratio
(here 1 apprentice to 3 journeymen) would be contained in the pro-
gram written up by the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, of
this Department.
A review of Use record as now constituted, indicates
that subcontractor McKewin's performance over the many weeks in
which he worked on the Westport Homes project substantially com-
plied with the applicable ratio in that, over the total perform-
ance period, his apprentices compared to journeymen ran approxi-
mately 1 to 3. Although we have no specific figures on subcon-
tractor Landergreen, it is our understanding from informal dis-
cussions with you that he was in approximately the same status,
as regards ratio, as was McKewin. Under these circumstances we
would not-require further enforcement action as to these subcon-
tractors with respect to the apprenticeship question. In facts
and as a matter of general enforcement guidance, we might here
confirm that, although the allowable ratio is determined as ex-
plained above, we realize that occasions will arise in the course
of a job when the allowable ratio may be exceeded temporarily
without necessarily requiring enforcement action in the form of
assessing restitution. For example, a contractor under a bona
fide program may on a particular day or days be performing a-
certain type of work on which his apprentices may not be able
to otherwise get training for a considerable period of time.
In line with basic apprenticeship goals, we would have no ob-
jection to the Contracting Officer or his equivalent allowing
the contractor to utilize additional apprentices for that

Mr. Fred R. Wo1ford       Page 4
Limited poriod in order that they might profit by this unusual
work experience. Likewise, it a contractor who generally has
been found in compliance with the apprenticeship requirements,
should on an occasion be found temporarily and in apparent good
faith to have exceeded the allowable ratio, possibly through
circumstances beyond his control, we would have no objection
to your representative taking a nonenforcement stand as to resti-
tution provided the contractor promptly corrected his ratio im-
balance. However, such variances should be closely scrutinized
and, in case of doubt, either our Regional Attorney of this Of-
fice should be contacted for guidance or approval of proposed
compliance actions
Since according to our files, the only remaining open
case involving the subject project to that covering subcontractor
Calvert Insulation Company (refer your September 14, 1960, letter
to us), we have closed our files on this project with the excep-
tion of the Calvert Insulation Company files. We also have ad-
vised Mr. Alleck A. Reanick, counsel for Gordon MeKewin, that
he will hear further from your Office or from the Local Housing
Authority regarding the disposition of the matter involving his
client.
We have also furnished your General Counsel a copy of
this opinion and advised him that clarification of our Regulations
with respect to the allowable ratio of apprentices on a job basis
has been made one of the items On our program for revision of Regula-
tions, Part 5.
thank you for your continued cooperation in these la-
bor standards enforcement matters.
Very truly yours
Harold C. Nystrom
Acting Solicitor of Labor

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25
0tober 27 1960
Mr. Laurence Davern
General Counsel
Public Housing Administration
Housing and Home Finance Agency
Washington 25, D. C.
Raa E-60-298 etc.
Maryland
Dear Mr. Davern:
This is in reply to your inquiry of July 8, 1960, re-
garding the proper ratio of apprentices to journeymen to be em-
ployed on projects subject to the labor standards provisions of
the Davis-Bacon and related Acts. Apparently, the question arose
in connection with the construction of a project known as Westport
Homes in Baltimore, Maryland where several contractors, although
utilizing properly registered apprentices, did not maintain as to
that project their applicable apprentice ratios When the matter
was called to their attention, the reply was made that nothing in
Regulations, Part 5 nor in the contract provisions, required their
ratio to be maintained on a job basis.
We agree with you that our Regulations and the contract
provisions should be amended to clarify our traditional position
that the allowable apprenticeship ratio must, as a general rule,
be maintained on a job basis when the job involved is one subject
to the labor standards requirements. Our views on this subject
are set out at length in the enclosed copy of our letter at this
date addressed to Mr. Fred Wolford, Spaid Assistant to the Com-.
Missioner, Public Housing Administration.
Clarification of our regulations with respect to this
point has been made one of the items in our program for revisions
of Regulations, Part 5, In the meantime, it to suggested that
the apprenticeship paragraph cited in your letter to the one used
in your construction contract documents be amended by adding the
language contained in our widely distributed pamphlet on employ-
ment of Apprentices on Federal or Federally Assisted Construction
Projects", namely:
I

Mr. Lawrence Davern      Page 2
"The allowable ratio of apprentices to skilled workers
permitted to work on a covered project or job shall not be greater
than the ratio allowed the contractor as to his entire work force.
Thank you for having brought this matter to our atten-
tion.
Very truly yours,
Harold C. Nystrom
Acting Solicitor of Labor
enclosure