Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, Subcontractors. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Atomic weapons employers, DOE contractors, and Requirements for eligibility of. To view a particular decision or order in its entirety, click on the hyperlink for that decision or order at the end of the head note.
- Employees of a contractor or a subcontractor of an AWE are not covered under Part B of the EEOICPA, only individuals employed directly by an AWE are covered. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 25833-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, October 20, 2004); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 55211-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 16, 2004).
- A “DOE contractor” is an entity engaged in a contractual business arrangement with DOE to provide services, produce materials or manage operations at a beryllium vendor facility or a DOE facility. A “subcontractor” is an entity engaged in a contractual business arrangement with a beryllium vendor or a DOE contractor to provide a service at a beryllium vendor facility or a DOE facility. A “contract” for the purpose of determining whether an entity is a “DOE contractor” is an agreement to perform a service in exchange for compensation, usually memorialized by a memorandum of understanding, a cooperative agreement, an actual written contract, or any form of written or implied agreement. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34291-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 1, 2003).
- In order for the employee of a subcontractor to be determined to have performed a “service” at a covered facility, the individual must have performed work or labor for the benefit of another within the boundaries of a DOE facility or a beryllium vendor facility. The mere delivery of goods alone, including the loading or unloading of goods, is not a “service” performed for the benefit of DOE or a beryllium vendor. Truck driver who merely delivered goods to DOE facility did not perform a “service” for DOE. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 50247-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 16, 2004).
- Survivor who submitted a statement indicating that her husband was employed by Illinois Central Railroad as a flagman and conductor was unable to establish covered employment, because the mere delivery and loading or unloading of goods alone is insufficient to establish that a service was performed for the benefit of DOE. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 61192-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, April 5, 2005).
- FAB concluded that there was no subcontract that required GSA to provide services for DOE’s contractor at the Kansas City Plant, for compensation, that it was not statutorily obligated to perform. Therefore, GSA was not a DOE subcontractor at the Kansas City Plant. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20130111-12000242-2 (Dep’t of Labor, June 13, 2013).
- A finding of covered employment can be made upon verification that the employee worked for a subcontractor during a covered time period on the premises of a DOE facility or a beryllium vendor facility. Security clearance documents can provide evidence that a clearance was requested but do not also establish the employee’s presence at the facility. In addition, Social Security records do not assist in demonstrating that the employee worked on-site at the facility. Employee’s security clearance card and Social Security earnings statements were insufficient to establish on-site presence at the facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 55317-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 21, 2004).