|
| |
| LITIGATION |
| IMCO’S litigation history also raises
questions about their responsibilities to pay promised wages and material
costs, and to honor contracts. IMCO’s own employees, subcontractors and
suppliers have sued IMCO for nonpayment and breach of contract. In at least
one instance, IMCO’s client was dragged into the litigation.
 ELCON VS IMCO
IMCO was the general contractor on a street improvement project for the
City of Lynnwood in Washington. IMCO awarded Elcon Corporation the
subcontract for the electrical work. When IMCO awarded the subcontract for
electrical work to Elcon, IMCO was acutely aware that Elcon’s bid was based
upon scheduling and sequencing. As soon as work was started, IMCO ordered
extra work from Elcon and drastically changed Elcon’s work schedule.
According to Elcon’s court complaint, "...Elcon was forced by IMCO to pursue
its work without logical sequence, inefficiently and at great extra
expense." Elcon filed claim for $404,593 for delays, disruptions and
inefficiencies suffered on this project. (Case
#99-2-02217-1)
WA. DEPT OF LABOR &
INDUSTRIES VS IMCO
IMCO General Construction Inc. was working for the City of Ferndale on a
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project. The Department of Labor and
Industries was called in to investigate complaints that were made regarding
IMCO violating prevailing wage laws. The Department of Labor and Industries
found that IMCO had indeed violated prevailing wage laws involving numerous
IMCO employees. IMCO paid several employees less than the legal wages for
their jobs. According to court documents, IMCO owed $26,552.96 in back wages
and $500 in penalties. (Case #99-2-01780-0)
SAUCER VS. IMCO, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, OTHERS
On an IMCO job at the Deception Pass Washington State Park, Saucer did
work for IMCO. Saucer's services were billed in the amount of over $140,000.
According to court documents, IMCO did not pay Saucer for their services.
Not only did Saucer sue IMCO, but they also sued the State of Washington
seeking a lien against the Parks and Recreations Department funds.
(case #97-2-00718-1)
B.A. VAN DE GRIFT VS. IMCO
AND BELLINGHAM FROZEN FOODS
IMCO was the General Contractor for construction at this frozen food
plant and Van De Grift was a materials supplier to that job. IMCO did not
pay Van De Grift for $19,201 worth of labor and materials. One month after
the job was finished, Van De Grift filed a lien against Bellingham Frozen
Foods. Van De Grift then asked that the court order a sheriff's sale of the
property of IMCO's client to pay IMCO's debt. In other words, according to
this court suit, because of IMCO's failure to pay its debts, its client was
faced with a request for a court order to sell of their property.
(case #91-2-01624-7)
LEE STAFFORD VS. IMCO
According to this courtsuit, IMCO violated numerous state and federal
statues, regulations and common law principales of fair trade practices and
fair dealings with the plantiff. Lee Stafford was employed by IMCO for over
four years. Court documents state that IMCO continually and repeatedly
underpaid Stafford according to an agreement. (case
#88-2-01014-1) |
   
|
