Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BRINK'S, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FED. RE

January 11, 1979

BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM et al., Defendants, Wells Fargo Armored Car Service Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor



The opinion of the court was delivered by: PARKER

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This is an action regarding the application of the Service Contract Act (Act), 41 U.S.C. § 351 Et seq., to certain contracts of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Richmond Bank or Bank). That Act requires the inclusion of minimum wage and fringe benefit specifications in service contracts between the United States and third parties. Plaintiffs Brink's and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT or Teamsters) seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Richmond Bank and the Federal Reserve Board requiring, among other things, that the Richmond Bank adhere to the Act and keep in effect a contract between Brink's and the Richmond Bank pending final disposition of the action rather than allow Wells Fargo to begin providing the service in question. The issue of whether the Act applies to contracts of the Richmond Bank, as Brink's, IBT, and plaintiff-intervenor the United States contend, is reserved for later ruling. *fn1"

 Findings of Fact

 1. Plaintiff, Brink's, Inc. (Brink's), is a Delaware corporation and operates an armored car carrier service to transport coin, currency, and other valuables.

 2. Plaintiff-intervenor, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor union and through its local affiliates represents employees of Brink's through the collective bargaining process.

 3. Plaintiff-intervenor, United States of America, through its agent the Secretary of Labor, is charged with administration and enforcement of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351 Et seq.

 4. Defendant, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is one of 12 federal reserve banks established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 12 U.S.C. § 221 Et seq. The Richmond Bank's multistate district encompasses the District of Columbia.

 5. Defendant, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), is a federal body also organized under the Federal Reserve Act and is charged with administering the nation's monetary policy.

 6. Defendant-intervenor, Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation (Wells Fargo), is a Delaware corporation which transports coin, currency, and other valuables in armored vehicles.

 7. The Service Contract Act promulgated in 1965 requires the inclusion in service contracts entered into by the United States in excess of $ 2500 of provisions specifying the prevailing area minimum wages and fringe benefits. The wage and fringe benefit specifications are determined by the Secretary of Labor, or where a collective bargaining agreement covers the service employees, in accord with the rates for such employees provided for in the agreement.

 8. The Richmond Bank's contracts do not comply with the Act and the Bank contends that the Act does not properly apply to it. Brink's maintains that it does.

 9. In November, 1976, the Richmond Bank issued an invitation for bids on a three-year contract beginning January 1, 1978, to provide armored car transportation between Virginia and West Virginia. Both Brink's and Wells Fargo submitted bids.

 10. Wells Fargo was the lowest bidder, and its bid was accepted in April, 1977, subject to its receipt of the necessary operating authority from the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.