Title: City of Reno v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

127 Nev,, Advance Opinion 10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CITY OF RENO,
Appellant,

No, 54569

vs. |
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION |
TRADES COUNCIL OF NORTHERN |
NEVADA; INTERNATIONAL |
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL |
WORKERS, LOCAL 401; PAINTERS
AND ALLIED TRADES, LOCAL 567;

|

FILED

AND SHEET METAL WORKERS NAR 3 20th
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, RA eee ne
LOCAL 26, oor
Respondents.

Od

Appeal from a district court order granting a petition for
judicial review in a prevailing wage action. Second Judicial District
Court, Washoe County; Steven R. Kosach, Judge.

Affirmed,
John J. Kadlic, City Attorney, and Jonathan D. Shipman, Deputy City
Attorney, Reno,
for Appellant.

Michael B, Langton, Reno,
for Respondents.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.
OPINION

By the Court, GIBBONS, J.:
Respondents Building & Construction Trades Council of
Northern Nevada; Painters and Allied Trades, Local 567; International

 

 

i 62663
 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 401; and Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local 26 (collectively, the unions), representing
workers on the construction of a retail store in Reno, filed complaints with
‘the Labor Commissioner alleging that their workers did not receive
prevailing wages on that project. ‘Two of those unions! further alleged
that appellant City of Reno had failed to fulfill its duty to investigate
whether workers were receiving prevailing wages, a duty the unions
contend the City had because the project was set to receive public
financing in the form of sales tax anticipation revenue (STAR) bond funds.

‘The Labor Commissioner conducted a hearing and concluded
that the City did not have a duty to investigate the prevailing wage
claims, and that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the particular prevailing
wage claims at issue. After the unions petitioned the district court for
Judicial review, the district court granted the petition and remanded the
case to the Labor Commissioner, concluding that the City had a duty to
investigate the prevailing wage discrepancies under NRS 338,070 and that
the Labor Commissioner had jurisdiction to consider the claims.

We first consider whether the City had a duty to investigate
the prevailing wage discrepancies. While the district court concluded that
the City had a statutory duty to investigate, we conclude that the City had
a contractual duty to investigate the prevailing wage discrepancies, and
therefore, we do not consider the City’s statutory duty. Second, we
consider the effect on this case of our holding in Carson-Tahoe Hospital v.

‘Building & Construction ‘Trades Council of Northern Nevada and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 401, specifically
complained to the Labor Commissioner that the City of Reno failed to
fulfill its duty to investigate the prevailing wage discrepancies.

 
Building _& Construction Trades, 122 Nev. 218, 128 P.3d 1065 (2006),
which concerned applying the prevailing wage statutes to a different type
of project. While Carson-Tahoe dealt with a related issue, because the
projects involved in the two cases were financed by differing statutory
modes, the facts are distinguishable. Lastly, we consider the City's
remaining argument and conclude that the Labor Commissioner has
jurisdiction to ensure prevailing wages are paid on projects receiving
STAR bond funds.* Thus, while we do not completely agree with the
district court’s reasoning for why the City had a duty to investigate the
prevailing wage discrepancies, we nonetheless affirm its order.

 

*The City also argues that the unions did not have standing to
petition for judicial review, The unions had standing to petition for
judicial review because they were recognized as parties of record during
the Labor Commissioner's hearing and were aggrieved parties to a
contested case because they were the complainants before the Labor
Commissioner, and when the Labor Commissioner dismissed the
complaints, all complainants became aggrieved. See NRS 233B.130(1)..
Further, the unions have a legal right to pursue the appropriate
proceedings to ensure that prevailing wages are paid to the workers they
represent. See Webb v. Clark County School Dist., 125 Nev.__, __, 218
Pd 1239, 1244 (2009) (noting that an aggrieved party means a party with
a substantial grievance, including the denial “of some equitable or legal
right” (internal quotations omitted),

In response to the City's argument, the unions argue that because
the City did not raise the issue of standing before the Labor
Commissioner, it was barred from raising it in the district court, and thus,
cannot raise it here. The City is challenging the union's standing to
petition for judicial review, not the union's standing to bring complaints
before the Labor Commissioner. The City properly preserved this issue for
appeal.

 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2005, the Nevada Legislature enacted the Tourism
Improvement District Law, NRS Chapter 271A, which sets out the
requirements for STAR bonds. 2005 Nev. Stat., ch. 477, §§ 8-14, at 2363-
68. These bonds use sales taxes to help fund local improvement projects,
such as privately owned tourism, retail, and entertainment-related
projects. Id. §§ 6, 8, at 2362-63. These projects are meant to
predominantly generate sales from out-of-state residents and can only be
constructed in an area where there has been no retail business for a period
of at least 120 days. Id. § 9, at 2363-66. Local governments fund these
Projects both through bonds and through reimbursement payments after
the project is completed. Id. § 13, at 2367-68.

‘The first project commenced under this chapter was the
construction in Reno of Cabela's, a retail store specializing in hunting,
fishing, and outdoor gear. The City of Reno entered into a public financing
agreement with Cabela's, in which the parties agreed that prevailing
wages would be paid and that all prevailing wage laws would be followed.
‘The financing agreement states that

[Cabela's] is responsible for providing the City and
the State Labor Commission with all information
required by NRS 338,010 to NRS 338.090, and is
otherwise responsible for all compliance
requirements set forth in those provisions of NRS.
{Cabela’s] shall file with the City a quarterly
report on the demography of the workers
‘employed by any contractor or subcontractor

The City agreed to investigate alleged violations of the prevailing wage
requirements:

With regard to alleged violations of federal and
state laws and regulations filed with the Labor
Commissioner no later than thirty (30) days after

  

 

 
the Opening Date, the City has: (j) completed its
investigations; (ji) determined whether a violation
has been committed; and (ii) filed its findings
with the appropriate regulatory authority or
agency, if any.

‘The City was to complete its investigation within specific time frames and
provide its findings to the Labor Commissioner.

‘The parties’ agreement referred to NRS 338.010 to NRS
888.090, which provisions deal with publiely financed projects: specifically,
NRS 838.020 to NRS 838.090 mandate the payment of prevailing wages
on all projects funded through a contract with a public body.’ Cabela's
contracted with licensed Nevada contractors to provide labor, materials,
equipment, and supplies for the project,

During the project’s construction, the unions filed numerous
complaints with the Labor Commissioner's office alleging that prevailing
wages were not paid on the Cabela's project and that the City violated the
provisions of NRS 338,020 to NRS 338.090, including NRS 338.070(1)
(requiring a public body that has awarded a contract to investigate
prevailing wage discrepancies), and thus, should be fined. ‘The complaints
were consolidated and then bifurcated to separate the alleged violations of
the contractors from the alleged violations of the City. The parties agreed
to bifureate the proceedings against the City into two hearings: (1) a
hearing to determine the threshold matter of whether the City had a duty

 

“The Labor Commissioner determines what the prevailing wage in
each county is for a specific craft or type of work by annually surveying
contractors who have performed that type of craft or work in that county.
NRS 338.030. The prevailing wage laws are meant to ensure that a public
body pays a laborer working on a public project no less than the prevailing
wage they would receive for the same type of work done for a private
employer in that county. NRS 338.020,

 

 
to investigate the prevailing wage complaints; and (2) a hearing to
consider the City’s conduct, if it was determined in the first hearing that
the City had a duty to investigate. After conducting a hearing, the Labor
Commissioner concluded that the City did not have a statutory duty to
investigate prevailing wage claims and, thus, no second hearing to
consider the City’s conduct was necessary. ‘The Labor Commissioner also
ultimately chose to address the claims against the contractors in his order
regarding the claims against the City. In the order, he declined to address
the merits of the claims against the contractors because he determined
that he did not have jurisdiction to consider them.

‘The unions filed a petition for judicial review. The district
court granted the petition and held that the Labor Commissioner's
decision was unreasonable because under NRS 338.070 the City had a
duty to investigate the prevailing wage discrepancies on the Cabela's
project. ‘The district court also determined that the Labor Commissioner
had jurisdiction to review the wage claims, and accordingly, the court
reversed the Labor Commissioner's order and remanded the case to the
Labor Commissioner for further proceedings. This appeal followed.

pISct
Lom jad_a_cont juty to investigate whether ing
wages were being paid on the Cabela's project

The City argues that it did not have a duty under NRS
338.070 to investigate whether prevailing wages were being paid on the
Cabela's project. The district court concluded, however, that the City had
a statutory duty to investigate prevailing wage discrepancies on the
Cabela's project. We agree that the City had a duty to investigate, but we

conclude this duty derived from the financing agreement between the City
and Cabela's.

 

 
‘The standard for reviewing petitions for judicial review of
administrative decisions is the same for this court as it is for the district
court. Weaver v, State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 494, 498, 117
P.3d 193, 196 (2005). Like the district court, we decide “pure legal
questions without deference to an agency determination.” Jones_v.
Rosner, 102 Nev. 215, 217, 719 P.2d 805, $06 (1986). We do not give any
deference to the district court decision when reviewing an order regarding
a petition for judicial review. Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 1105, 146
P.8d 801, 805 (2006).

Here, the City entered into the financing agreement with
Cabela's that specifically stated prevailing wages would be paid and that
NRS 338.010 through NRS 338.090 would be complied with. The
financing agreement also required Cabela's to submit documentation to
the City showing that prevailing wages were being paid and required the
City to investigate Cabela's statutory compliance. ‘Thus, by contract, the
City undertook the responsibility to investigate prevailing wage
discrepancies on the Cabela's project, even if it was not required to do so
under NRS 338.070. The City conceded that it had this contractual duty
during the hearing before the Labor Commissioner, Although we do not
grant deference to the district court's decision, we affirm the district
court's order insofar as the court determined that such a duty existed and
granted the petition for judicial review. See Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev.
571, 575, 747 P.2d 230, 283 (1987) (stating that this court will affirm an
order of the district court if it reached the correct result for reasons that

differ from our own).

 

 
‘The City contends that our analysis of the application of

prevailing wage laws in Carson-Tahoe Hospital _v. Building _&
Construction Trades, 122 Nev. 218, 128 P.3d 1065 (2006), bars a

conclusion that its investigation and the payment of prevailing wages
under NRS Chapter 388 were statutorily mandated here. We disagree.

In Carson-Tahoe, a private organization financed the
construction of a new hospital on hospital-owned land through $95 million
in economic development bonds sanctioned by the city board and issued
pursuant to the County Economie Development Revenue Bond Law, NRS
244A.669 through NRS 244A.763. 122 Nev. at 219, 128 P.Sd at 1066. The
economic development revenue bonds at issue did not utilize public money
because they did “not involve taxpayer money or obligate county funds.”
Id, at 221, 128 P.3d at 1067. Therefore, we concluded that payment of
prevailing wages was not required because the contract did not involve a
public body or a public work. Id. at 222, 128 P.Sd at 1068.

‘The STAR bonds used for the Cabela’s project are different
from the economic development revenue bonds used for the project in
Carson-Tahoe because they were created under different acts that have
different provisions and requirements. Unlike economic development
revenue bonds, STAR bonds are ultimately financed by taxpayers through

sales taxes. The City concedes that Cabela's was a public project.

‘Therefore, we conclude that Carson-Tahoe is inapplicable here.
a. yr Commissioner has jurisdi nder NRS ur 271A

‘The district court concluded that the Labor Commissioner has

jurisdiction to enforce prevailing wage laws with respect to all STAR bond-

financed projects. Although the City contends that the district court
misinterpreted the language in NRS 271A.130 that places STAR bond

 

 
projects under the Labor Commissioner's purview, given our rejection of
Carson-Tahoe's application to this matter and our independent review of
the statute, we disagree,

NNRS 271A.130(3) specifically states that NRS 338.010 to NRS
338.090 apply to contracts and agreéments for projects that are financed
through STAR bonds: “The provisions of NRS 338,010 to 338,090.
inclusive, apply to any contract or other agreement for the construction,
improvement, repair, demolition or reconstruction of any project that is
paid for in whole or in part [through NRS Chapter 271A financing),
regardless of whether the project is publicly or privately owned.”
(Emphases added.) NRS 338.020 requires that the prevailing wage must
be paid to workers working on public projects. NRS 338,015 requires the
Labor Commissioner to “enforce the provisions of NRS 338.010 to 338.130,
inclusive.”

We review a district court's interpretation of a statute de novo.
si tof Mtr, Vi  Frangul, 110 Nev. 46, 48, 867 P.2d 397, 398
(1994). When a statute uses words that have a definite and plain
meaning, the words will retain that meaning unless it clearly appears that
the Legislature did not intend such a meaning. State v, State, Emplovees
Assoc,, 102 Nev. 287, 289, 720 P.2d 697, 699 (1986). “No part of a statute
should be rendered meaningless, and this court will not read statutory
language in a manner that produces absurd or unreasonable results.”
Carson-Tahoe, 122 Nev. at 220, 128 P.3d at 1067.

The plain language of NRS 271A.180 incorporates NRS
838.010 to 338.090, which include provisions mandating the payment of
prevailing wages on public projects and the enforcement of such mandates
by the Labor Commissioner. A conclusion that the Labor Commissioner

does not have jurisdiction to enforce prevailing wages on such projects

 

 
would render NRS 271A.130 meaningless and produce an absurd and
unreasonable result, ‘Thus, we hold that the Labor Commissioner has
jurisdiction to enforce this mandate.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order insofar as the
court granted judicial review and remanded for further proceedings; those
proceedings, however, should be in mner consistent with

this opinion. .