Mass. couple will pay $58K
BOSTON (Legal Newsline) - Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced on Thursday that a Sharon, Mass., husband and wife will pay more than $58,000 in restitution and fines for various alleged labor violations.
Alexander and Tatiana Shlepakov allegedly failed to pay the prevailing wage, misclassified workers as independent contractors and made record keeping violations with their insulation companies in Rhode Island and Sharon.
"All workers on public construction projects in the state deserve to be paid what they are rightfully owed under the law," Coakley said. "Any employer that has a state or municipal contract must abide by the rules, which includes properly classifying their employees in their records."
Alexander Shlepakov, the owner of Padi USA Inc., located in Providence, R.I., was cited for alleged willful failure to pay the prevailing wage to 10 employees at seven public works construction projects, willfully failing to submit true and accurate certified payroll records to the awarding authorities, willfully misclassifying seven employees as independent contractors, and failing to keep true and accurate payroll records. Coakely alleges that Shlepakov and his company owe more than $12,700 in wages to the affected employees. Alexander Shlepakov must also pay a $12,750 fine to the state.
Tatiana Shlepakov and her company, Elad Industrial Insulation Inc., were cited for alleged willful failure to pay the prevailing wage to two employees on public construction projects, misclassifying two employees as independent contractors, willfully failing to submit true and accurate certified payroll records to awarding authorities, and failing to pay timely wages.
Shlepakov and her company were cited for failing to pay employees $19,515.15 in wages. They have since paid $18,125.25 directly to one employee. Shlepakov and her company have also been ordered to pay a $12,250 fine to the state.
The Massachusetts Employee Misclassification Law provides that an individual performing any service shall be considered to be an employee unless the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer and the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his or her contract for the performance of service and in fact, and the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, profession, occupation or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.