decide this case but instead to certify an issue to the california supreme court which is appropriate when there is an issue and unresolved issue of statutory construction that involves a significant broad public policy such as labor law statutes regret relating pay of thousands of california workers certification and you posed a certain question my understanding is that counsel for a pal a while said no this is easy just decided and we'll win but i'm going to ask the pallies counsel when you come out if paraphrasing it would be whether an installation under labor code section seven hundred twenty must be fixed if to a work of a reality or a land in order for it to be a public worker we decide cases in the california supreme court decides that that question really seems more abstract than the question posed by this case well then i guess the issue would be whether or not the work was being performed by the plaintiff and the class here  installing equipment on rail cars constitutes an installation under labor code section seven hundred twenty as to entitle them to prevailing wages on public work projects been resolved repeatedly by california courts but if you if the court were to look at the principle to cases on which the lab tech relies to make that claim it becomes apparent that in fact this issue has not been resolved by any california court they first reference a nine hundred forty intermediate appellate court case swanton which concerned a different statute involving different language to suggest that in fact it must be the case that work need all work needs to be a fixed work on reality or land in order for it to be a public work and then they move on to a more me a recent case city of long beach where which also did not involve at all the issue about whether or not an installation needed to be fixed to real with your land but instead concern soley pre construction funding for architectural designs legal fees insurance costs except or in the court question whether or not that would constitute a public work expenditure under the former version of seven hundred twenty eight had been and it will decide this particular case is not binding on california but it would be binding on the ninth circuit and by this case but so you argue the onboard work is covered by the prevailing wage law because it is the definition of installation under the statute correct and so wak check site several administrative authorities are just saying that the prevailing wage it would show that in fact the agency is taking inconsistent positions and moreover the fact remains that it's the court's function and not the mystery of the agency's function primarily to interpret the meaning of can't mean that we need to look at the agencies interpretation of insulation what's among other things that the court should look out but if the court will look further and see what happened in the aftermath of that amendment where the d i r specifically found that an installation did not include office modular furniture the legislature then stepped in and said no that's not what we met with respect to that specific issue it's clear that the legislature disapproved of what the  in a footnote in our brief we cited specifically to a number of administrative decisions that were in the that are in the record that i will bring up on rebuttal and i'll reference the court to those on the bottle but there are there are conflicting decisions and moreover when it's important to keep in mind that when the legislature wants to specifically link the definition of public work to work on a reality it knows how to do that and if the court will look at for example government code section four thousand two and i quote is used in this chapter public work means the construction of any period road street highway gets canal dam legislation in say any public contract mean legislation can set the rules the way it wants and set the rules that compel all government units in the state contract under the legislature's rules but it hasn't done that so why should we infer that the legislature intended to make the work at issue here something for which the prevailing wage scale has to apply well by definit the my reasoning would be that when the legislature specifically wants to link public works to reality it knows how to do that didn't do that was seven hundred twenty which generally defined as construction alteration demolition alteration repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part of public out of public funds so clearly left a much broader included a much broader definition in seven hundred twenty than it did with respect to these other statues but moving on to the point that the court referenced earlier our principal argument beyond what we would urge the court to certify would be that under under their code section seven hundred seventy two which provides workers employed by contractors subcontractors in the execution of any contract for public work or deemed to be employed upon public work clearly applies here this parson's position i'm sorry tax position is that only applies only we only states the truth that if you're an employee on a public work you are entitled to a prevailing wage but that would mean it's exactly the same as section seven hundred seventy one it would be inconsistent with california law on point which specifically provides out of the work performed under a sub contract is interim grohl to the work under the general public works contract then a prevailing wage much must be paid on that  sub contracts so here the work performed under the web text contract was by definition interim goal as interim go as you could possibly get with respect to the general contract that was perfor parsons parsons metrolink hired parsons to perform one integrated contract to provide a positive train control system under paragraph thirty four of the contract it was required to pay a prevailing wage that  provision was incorporated into the sub contract with well attacking congressional testimony and deposition metrolink characterize the work that was being performed as building a communication network i'm quoting which included work on trains the waste site and dispatch centers it's admit it it's admitted that the con the work under the general parsons contract was a public work and it can't be disputed that unless the web tech work was also performed the work that was performed by parsons on the way side which is admitted to be a public work would be useless they both sides of the equation were absolutely needed for this project to  have any effect once that whatsoever there was it was a communication system between the installation work on the rail on the way side and the installation work that was performed on the rail cars without either of them the work by the other would be absolutely useless i would like to save some time thank you d question of certification if you'd like me to since you posed a question to me already in relation to that and i would note that we would believe that certification is not appropriate in this circumstance because there is th a long history of consistent interpretations your honor last year in a case that denied certification in the tele flex medical verse national union case because there was a consistent court of appeals definition of public works in california labor code seven hundred twenty one we believe that identifies the specifics of the case and builds in the assumption that there is a contract there and then i asked whether or not it applies to the law the definition of public works we don't have an objection based on what i heard anyway to the plainest proposal in terms of the if they resorted to the definition of installation and whether or not this soley addresses the issue of installation but posing a question on the installation to the supposed they supreme court without addressing other issues doesn't resolve the case unless of course plaintiffs are willing to agree that the only issue left in the case is the installation question we don't believe in the sort of occasion of the installation issue was necessary because there has been or first you the court noted there has been admission in the wage law is to be liberally construed why shouldn't it and so that's that it's an argument that might be the strongest as to why we should certify honor two different responses on this first on the liberally construed there's actually a question about the liberal construction it's clear that if the prevailing wage law applies it has to be liberally construed on the question of application of the statute is not necessarily sublists subject to liberal construction and why would you concede that there is not an exact case on point by the california supreme court or any of the court of appeal that answer this precisely on the issue of installation i would agree there is no california supreme court case on point yes you can see that field installation work qualifies as a public work and doesn't that make the prime contract a public works contract and he talked about here at the appellant talked about california labor code seven hundred seventy two which states workers employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract for public work are deemed to be employed upon public work wasn't both the field installation work and the on board work in execution of the prime there was one section section thirty four of the contract which addressed field installation work and that provision that section included a prevailing wage provision workers versus duncan in two thousand and fourteen which expressively looked at the circumstances and asked just because something is done away from the work site is that part of this and it addressed the seven hundred seventy two argument whether or not there was a jurisdictional limit a limit within the prevailing wage requirements to focus on the work site and found that there is and you have to decide whether or not there is a tangible  integration of what is done away from the building construction site into the construction work and when when and when the court and plaintiffs use the terms integration in the integral is important to understand the courts aren't saying this integral to a general contract the courts are saying that it's integrated into the construction and so the example of that is whether somebody is on hauling materials in those materials are then integrated into the construction and they participate in that process then that becomes part of the public work when somebody in the williams case all part of the contract but hauling things away from the construction site and not doing any work at the construction site it's not part of the public work and all of those cases are dealing with a single contract trains buses another vehicles and of quote and they found that was not covered work and it was all part of the same contract that house that was a that was a determination forty which is cited by the d i r decisions running through the city of long beach in two thousand and four running through the sheet metal workers decision in two thousand and fourteen honor i bet but there isn't a case that expressly talks about rolling stock that's correct and unfortunately if we certify every prevailing wage case to the state supreme court when there is a new if if you take away if you take their interpretation that anything in a contract covered it would change all california prevailing wage law of course it would be inconsistent with every decision that the california courts of issued on prevailing wage that look at the particular activities rather than looking at the contract and say is that it subject to a contract or not that would be a much different law than what's on the books now your honor in relation to the integral installation issue the one thing i did want to note which we haven't talked about there isn't a supreme court decision on this but what contract was put up to bid in two thousand and ten and so the law of prevailing wage applies when the contract goes out and so that that the amendment wouldn't have an impact but the modular furniture is not subject to prevailing wage consistent with their interpretation the legislature in two thousand and twelve took specific action to address that and what they did they didn't say the definition of installation is wrong they didn't adopt the definition of installation they said it deals with an effect activities it specifically addressed the question of collection of interpretations from v o r but the two thousand and sixteen county sponsored messages on private billboards decision from vi are it's your one ninety six says that installation means this is did according to california authority when the legislature acts in an area modifies that in some ways but doesn't modify it in other ways indorsed the definition of d i r and we would suggest that that is a different way of getting to the same answer on on the question of installation is it's not only a consistent department interpretation but the legislators demonstrated that it understands that definition and has modified to some extent in one application but otherwise has not modified it now going to in your honour's are there other issues that you're concerned about financed building sites rather than trying to cast a broad net to cats or everything within a contract and those decisions would have been rendered on the lety would have been meaningless if all you had to do is say there was a contract and that's what the sheet metal workers case really drives home beyond that over for over thirty years d i r is consistently held the prevailing wages do not apply to work on rolling stock pla questions ok you know what he's talking about i know they cited some footnotes and we did our best to try and distinguish the cases they cited i don't think they give a different definition of installation  but your honor we just simply ask that this court do the same thing that the court of appeals the california court of appeals did in the sheet metal workers case reject the invitation to change thank your honor i was i was mistaken the footnote i was referring to is at page twenty three of our opening proof footnote eight but that really concerns the issue about whether or not a different argument yes it's a different argument my mistake i apologize i i would so however i've come back to i don't know off your brief a series of director decisions on installations fully correct your honor but i would i would in that footnote i would call the court's attention to the issue that was just argued about the fact that integration means that it has to be actually a physical integration of the product into the work that's being performed that's a public work in order for it to be covered under seventeen twenty and i would point to court to three eighty seven where the courts the definitive question is whether work is truly independent or the work that was introduced into the performance of the performed by webb tack was interim to the judge to the contract work that was being performed by parsons which was clearly assume that any subcontract work is entered grow on some level i mean i'm not sure that unless you're going to just automatically sweep any subcontract yann i'm not sure wells is very well but i think it's a question of degree and here the degree is as high as you could possibly get in the court would look at the duncan case that was just discussed where the question was offsite fabrication was the offsite fabrication done at a facility that was that was dedicated to this particular project or was it done in a facility that was producing these materials anyhow and that's what the court determined to be the positive issue for whether or not it was into role here the work that was being performed by  was done solely as a result of the general contract under which parsons agreed to provide metrolink with this completed communication system and so that work was not only intricate was absolutely necessary specific number of cases that may be affected i could just tell you that this is a statute that has brought out placation in california it's obviously been an issue that has evaded court of appeal decisions up until this point  supreme court decisions up until this point but it clearly any public contract where we're involving work that isn't fixed on reality this issue would potentially appl