OCR Text |
Show J k. I(T L k' ii ' lv :? i i p- i it iL u;:-- : , - 7 i J mi i' f;Li t r IM V! f rii -- -i IX I1 WM'Jil 1U COLLECTIONS amiL THE SI k bounding Private producers fear closure by union pickets ' surety nor the contract price adjustment would increase the bond penalty amount nor by Milt Policzer Enterprise Staff Writer JELCO, Inc., is a pany that likes its privacy. In case youre not familiar with JELCO, its a privately owned company that builds power plants and transmission com- lines and similar sorts of things. Apparently theyre pretty good at it too. The utility companies they work for have nothing but praise for them. But JELCO doesnt like to talk about what it does, and when the Enterprise began investigating a flurry of rum- ors about the company, JELCO spokesmen denied everything. It later turned out that at least some of those rumors involving problems with bonding companies had substance to them. On public record JELCO' s disputes with bonding companies on two separate projects arc largely a matter of public record in court files, although their origins remain unclear. One dispute involves the refusal of Seaboard Surety Co. to honor a bond on a $2 million-plu- s transmission line project in Arizona. The other concerns an apparent demand by Travelers Indemnity Co. for control of negotiations on claims for payment on a power plant contraction project in Wyoming. The implication is that neither bonding company trusts JELCO to handle its own financial affairs. The Seaboard litigation began last June when JELCO filed a complaint in federal court seeking a judicial declaration that Seaboard's bond on a transmission line project was still in effect. According to the complaint, Seaboard had notified JELCO of its intention not to honor the bond for which it had been paid almost $85,000 because of a modification in the route of the line construction contracted for. Refused consent "Notwithstanding the fact that neither the consent of VOLUME 7 NUMBER 23 the materially increase suretys risk, the bonding company has refused td grant its consent to the changes James without great concessions respecting the corporate '(See JELCO, page 8) about this story . . . The Enterprise first became interested in JELCO some two months ago when a number of unsubstantiated rumors about company problems reached us. In an attempt to get confirmation or denial of them, we contacted Robert D. Maack, JELCO attorney, who requested a delay of the story for a few weeks until he returned from a trip. He said there was some truth to the rumors and that JELCO would be willing to elaborate in order to get the story straight. Enterprise editors reluctantly agreed to the delay. Eventually, a meeting was arranged between an Enterprise reporter, Maack, J.P. Breedlove, president, and Dale Anderson, company counsel. Despite the earlier promise of candor in return for the delay, the reporter was treated to a lecture on why privately-owne- d companies avoid publicity, a discussion of communications law, and a series of denials. In answer to a question as to whether JELCO had had trouble getting bonding, the reporter was told absolutely not. Breedlove did say JELCO currently had in the neighborbonded contracts and had hood of $100 million in fixed-pric- e just gotten two new contracts for about $8 million. Anderson also said JELCO owns some 3300 acres of land near Tooele which it has been trying to sell since it was purchased eight years ago. Asked the reason for all the circulating rumors, Anderson said they might have been spread by engineers who were laid off in 1975 as a rationale for their losing their jobs. About 50 persons were laid off. Breedlove explained JELCOs engineering department had been in conflict with the companys true business of construction by being competitive with JELCOs clients. Maack also requested that he be allowed to read the Enterprise story prior to publication so that it might be verified. He said he was concerned that publication of inaccurate information could seriously damage the company and prevent it from obtaining contracts. He also agreed to respond to more specific queries the Enterprise might have in the future. When the Enterprise discovered the Travelers and Seaboard disputes, Maack did answer some questions, but refused to comment further when he was told that Enterprise policy does not permit anyone to read a story before publication. Maack wasn't satisfied with an offer to have factual information used in the story checked with him for accuracy. He declined an invitation to discuss the issue with Enterprise editors. M. Schutz Enterprise Staff Writer The coal industry and employment officials in Utah are gritting their teeth in anticipation of the upcoming strike by the United Mine Workers (UMW) on Dec. 6. The coal industry fears striking workers may attempt to n shut down mines, and the states employment officials are hoping the strike, whatever its extent, will not last long enough to take a toll on the states economic wellbeing. non-unio- stakes for Utah's economy are high, and employment officials arc showing concern over the effects of a prolonged work stoppage. Val Jennings, manager of the job Service office in Price, said the immediate impact of a strike can be measured by estimating the loss in wages by strikThe average ing workers. daily wage of a coal miner, both union and nonunion, is about $60, said Jennings. With an estimated 1,500 workers under a UMW contract in the state, that translates into a loss of $90,000 per day. The Alter buying patterns Jennings said such a loss in earnings may drastically alter buying patterns before Christmas." Consequently, the retail trade could be the first to suffer after the workers lose their income. Employment officials arc especially fearful the strike might last through the holiday season. If the strike lasts through December, we could sec a significant increase in unemployment in retail and other related industries," said Jennings concerning the secondary effects of the strike. Employment officials also w'orry about the strike spilling mines. According to Jennings, total coal over to non-unio- n industry employment in Utah amounts to roughly 2,500. Although he was careful to point out not all of the 2,500 would be affected, at $60 per day, any additional loss of income could add up rapidly. There are approximately 600 n coal miners in Utah, and if only half of them are idled by union picketing of n mines, it could rein sult an additional $90,000 of lost wages each week the strike lasted. non-unio- non-unio- Picket non-unio- mines n The UMW district office, which supervises union activity in Utah, Wyoming, and r (Sec PICKETS, page 10) Inside The courtship is off Astron Energy voted down a merger with Dynapac Inc. in a decision to go it alone. 11 TriArc chief quits. Accountability without responsibility is more than Rod McDonald is prepared to take. 14 Im In, he says. Hes not,J they say. Who knows what Jack Sweeney is doing in Park v City? His partners: .. 5 'dont. Job agencies due for crackdown by Mary McMillan Gaber Contributing Editor Owners of employment agencies may be in for a shock next year. For the first time in many years, the labor division of the state industrial commission intends to closely scrutinize agencies activities. Beginning in January, for instance, industrial commissioner Milton E. Saathoff, head of the labor division, intends to send notices to all agencies that have not renewed their licenses. To his knowledge such a notice has never been initiated from his office before. In fact, as far as he MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1977 knows, very little attention on the state level has been paid to employment agencies. Many agencies haven't renewed their licenses for years. We don't even know how many agencies there arc, he states. As agencies begin filing the necessary documents to renew their licenses, Saathoff says, his office will be closely watching the contracts submitted to ensure they arc legal. Such a watchful eye was developed early in his career as industrial commissioner. After taking office in June, 1977, he was shortly apprised (See CRACK DOWN, page 4) 50 CENTS |