96-488

 No. 96-488

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,

 Petitioner and Respondent,

 v.

LAURIE EKANGER, Commissioner of Labor and

Industry, Montana Department of Labor and Industry;

THE LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 

NORTH AMERICA-MONTANA DISTRICT COUNCIL 

OF LABORERS; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 

OPERATING ENGINEERS; UNITED BROTHERHOOD 

OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA; 

EDSALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; and

BERNARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

 Respondents and Appellants.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Lewis & Clark,

 The Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellants:

 Daniel B. McGregor, Department of Labor and Industry, Helena, Montana

 Karl J. Englund, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Kelly A. Jenkins, Department of Administration, Helena, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: March 27, 1997

 Decided: August 7, 1997

Filed:

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-488%20Opinion.htm (1 of 7)4/16/2007 11:39:00 AM
96-488

 __________________________________________

Clerk

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

 Laurie Ekanger (Ekanger), Commissioner of Labor and Industry of the State of

Montana, appeals from the First Judicial District Courtþs order which reversed the

Department of Laborþs order awarding þheavyþ and þhighwayþ pay rates to workers

constructing underground tunnels at Montana State University (MSU). We reverse the

decision of the District Court and remand for determination of appropriate 

compensation

consistent with þheavyþ and þhighwayþ rates under the Little Davis-Bacon Act, 18-

2-

401 et seq., MCA.

 We address the following issue on appeal:

 Are the Edsall and Barnard tunnels "heavy" construction projects under

 Montana's Little Davis-Bacon Act, 18-2-401(5), MCA ? 

 

 BACKGROUND

 Montana law divides prevailing wage classifications for laborers into three

categories: heavy construction, highway construction and other types of construction

(i.e., building). Wages for heavy and highway workers are set at one rate in Montana

and wages for "other" (building) workers are set at a second rate. Sections 18-2-401

(5)

and (7), MCA, provide:

 (5) "Heavy and highway construction wage rates" means wage rates,

 including fringe benefits for health and welfare and pension contributions,

 that meet the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

 of 1974 and other bona fide programs approved by the United States

 department of labor and travel allowance that are determined and

 established statewide for heavy and highway construction projects, such as

 alteration or repair of roads, streets, highways, alleys, runways, trails,

 parking areas, or utility rights-of-way.

 . . . .

 (7) (a) "Standard prevailing rate of wages" or "standard prevailing

 wage" means:

 (i) the heavy and highway construction wage rates applicable to

 heavy and highway construction projects; or

 (ii) those wages, other than heavy and highway construction wages,

 including fringe benefits for health and welfare and pension contributions,

 that meet the requirements of the Employee Retirement Security Act of

 1974 and other bona fide programs approved by the United States

 department of labor and travel allowance that are paid in the district by

 other contractors for work of a similar character performed in that district

 by each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to complete a

 contract under this part. In each district, the standard prevailing rate of

 wages is a weighted average wage rate based on all of the hours worked on

 work of a similar character performed in the district.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-488%20Opinion.htm (2 of 7)4/16/2007 11:39:00 AM
96-488

 The instant case involves the appropriate prevailing wage for laborers working 

on

two separate construction projects at MSU. Specifically, this case involves a 

dispute as

to whether construction workers should receive the þheavyþ construction wage which is

generally $3.00 to $4.00 per hour greater than the building construction wage rate. 

The

first of these projects was formally known as þUnderground Utility Phase II, Montana

State University.þ For purposes of brevity, this project will be referred to as the

þBarnard Tunnelþ as it was eventually constructed by Barnard Construction. The 

second

project was officially known as the þEngineering/Physical Sciences Building, Utility

Tunnel.þ This project will be referred to as the þEdsall Tunnelþ as Edsall 

Construction

Company contracted to build this second tunnel. 

 At MSU, many of the buildings are heated with steam from a central heating 

plant.

Steam is carried in underground pipelines to buildings connected to the plant. Both 

the

Edsall and Barnard Tunnels were constructed to house steam and condensate pipes in

order to protect them from degradation and make them more accessible for maintenance

and repair. The Edsall and Barnard Tunnels are of similar design and are entirely

underground. Inside both tunnels are metal frames used to support the steam and

condensate pipelines and electrical overhead lights. Neither tunnel has a heating or

cooling system, windows, flooring or internal finished walls or any plumbing, 

plumbing

system or bathrooms.

 While the Edsall and Barnard Tunnels were being constructed, the Labor Standards

Bureau of the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (Department) received an

inquiry from Laborersþ International Union of North America, Montana District Council

of Laborers (Laborers) concerning the appropriate wage rate for construction on the

tunnels. In addition, the Department received a number of complaints from individual

construction workers employed on these two projects. Following an investigation, the

Department determined that these projects were not conventional buildings and, 

therefore,

should have been classified as þheavyþ construction projects for purposes of 

determining

the appropriate prevailing wage. The Department made the following finding:

 [A] review of the projectþs nature distinguishes it from a building. Few,

 if any, buildings in Montana are entirely underground, and in the case of

 the Barnard portion extend over approximately 600 yards through a major

 portion of the university campus. Few, if any buildings, lack windows, any

 type of conventional roofing, living or storage space, internal wood or steel

 framing (other than the utility support structures), doors, plumbing, and

 heating or cooling systems. Few, if any buildings, have an internal

 drainage system (gutters) in case of flooding through excess ground water

 or sump pump failure. Few, if any buildings, are constructed entirely of

 concrete and reinforcing steel. Indeed, few, if any buildings, are built

 entirely within the confines of a continuous trench running approximately

 600 yards in length, an estimated 60 feet in width at ground level . . . . 

 This is not a building in any conventional sense of the word.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-488%20Opinion.htm (3 of 7)4/16/2007 11:39:00 AM
96-488

After coming to the above conclusion, the Department found the contracting agency, 

the

Architecture and Engineering Division of the Montana Department of Administration

(AEDMDA), was responsible for back pay and future pay resulting from the wage

differences. AEDMDA filed an appeal of the Departmentþs determination and a 

contested

case hearing was held before a Department hearing officer Joseph V. Maronick

(Maronick). Maronick entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order which

affirmed the Departmentþs determination and directed AEDMDA to compensate

construction workers at the þheavy constructionþ wage rate. AEDMDA appealed this

decision to the District Court.

 After each party briefed and orally argued this matter, the District Court 

issued

an order reversing the Departmentþs determination. The District Court held that the

Department had misapplied Montanaþs Little Davis-Bacon Act, 18-2-401(7), MCA, and

that its decision to award þheavy constructionþ wages was erroneous. Ekanger, in her

position as Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry, appeals from the

District Courtþs order.

 DISCUSSION

 Are the Edsall and Barnard tunnels "heavy" construction projects under

 Montana's Little Davis-Bacon Act, 18-2-401(5), MCA? 

 We are called upon to review the District Court's application of the Little 

DavisBacon Act to the undisputed facts of this case. The standard of review of a district 

courtþs

conclusions of law is whether the courtþs interpretation of the law is correct. 

Carbon

County v. Union Reserve Coal Co. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686; see

also Kreger v. Francis (1995), 271 Mont. 444, 898 P.2d 672; Steer, Inc. v. Depþt of

Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 474-75, 803 P.2d 601, 603-04.

 Montana's Little Davis-Bacon Act defines three categories of wage rates: heavy

construction, highway construction and "other" types of construction. Sections 18-2-

401(5) and (7), MCA. The District Court held that this statute was unambiguous and

explained that the Barnard and Edsall tunnel projects did not qualify as "heavy or

highway" construction under 18-2-401(5), MCA, which defines "heavy and highway

construction wage rates" as applying to:

 projects, such as alteration or repair of roads, streets, highways, alleys,

 runways, trails, parking areas, or utility rights-of-way.

 In interpreting the above statute, the court reasoned that, with the exception 

of

"utility rights-of-way," the examples given all relate to roads and highways. The 

projects

in question were obviously not in the nature of a road or highway. The appellant,

however, argues that the projects are "utility rights-of-way." In response to this

argument, the court noted that, although the term "utility rights-of-way" is not 

defined

in Title 18, it is defined in Title 60 as:

 "Right of way" is a general term denoting land, property, or any interest

 in land or property, usually in a strip, acquired for or devoted to highway

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-488%20Opinion.htm (4 of 7)4/16/2007 11:39:00 AM
96-488

 purposes. 

Section 60-1-103(23), MCA. The court also relied on the definition of "right of way"

in Black's Law Dictionary 1326 (6th ed. 1990) as,

 a right belonging to a party to pass over land of another, but it is also used

 to describe that strip of land upon which railroad companies construct their

 road bed, and, when so used, the term refers to the land itself, not the right

 of passage over it.

Based upon these definitions of "right of way," the court concluded: "Simply stated, 

a

'right of way' is only an interest in the land or the use of the land, and does not 

include

utilities or other projects located on it." Since the tunnel projects were not road 

related

and were not "utility rights-of-way" (i.e. interests in land), the court concluded 

that the

tunnels "do not fit within any of the enumerated examples" of heavy or highway

construction. We determine that the District Court 's use of this definition of 

"utility

rights-of-way" in the context of the Little Davis-Bacon Act is erroneous. It makes 

no

sense to define "utility rights-of-way," as that term is used in 18-2-401(5), MCA, 

as

"only an interest in land." The relevant portion of 18-2-401(5), MCA, includes 

"utility

rights-of-way" in its examples of "heavy and highway construction 

projects." (Emphasis

added.) An "interest in land" cannot be considered as an example of a "project" in 

any

sense of the word. An interest in land exists by virtue of law; it is not 

"constructed"

through wage labor. As used in 18-2-401(5), MCA's list of projects, "utility 

rights-ofway" clearly denotes something that is built or constructed through labor. 

Furthermore,

a utility right-of-way is something other than a road or a highway. The District 

Court

erred in concluding that 18-2-401(5), MCA, has application only to matters related 

to

roads or highways. It applies as well to projects in which "utility rights-of-way" 

are

constructed through labor. 

 In construing any statute, the goal is to ascertain and implement the 

legislatureþs

intent. Burritt v. City of Butte (1973), 161 Mont. 530, 508 P.2d 563. Where the

language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is nothing left for a court to

construe. Keller v. Smith (1976), 170 Mont. 399, 553 P.2d 1002; Dunphy v. Anaconda

Co. (1968), 151 Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660. Section 18-2-401(5), MCA, requires heavy

and highway construction rates for projects:

 such as alteration or repair of roads, streets, highways, alleys, runways,

 trails, parking areas, or utility rights-of-way.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-488%20Opinion.htm (5 of 7)4/16/2007 11:39:00 AM
96-488

The use of the phrase þsuch asþ in listing projects requiring heavy construction wage

rates reflects an intent that the list be inclusive rather than exclusive. Section 

18-2-

401(5), MCA, is unambiguous in its inclusion of "utility rights-of-way" in the heavy 

and

highway project classification.

 The Edsall and Barnard Tunnels are "utility rights-of-way" projects in which

tunnels were constructed to house steam and condensate pipes in a protected 

underground

corridor to provide heat to buildings on the MSU campus. As such, these projects are

among the enumerated projects considered as "heavy construction" under 18-2-401(5),

MCA. 

 In summary, we hold that the Little Davis-Bacon Act heavy and highway

construction wage rate clearly is not restricted to projects which are road or 

highway

related. Rather, this wage rate has application to "heavy" projects involving 

utility rightsof-way such as the Edsall and Barnard Tunnels. The decision of the District Court is

reversed and the matter is remanded for determination of appropriate back pay. 

 /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

Justice Karla M. Gray, specially concurring.

 

 I concur in the result reached by the Court, namely, that the construction 

workers

on the Edsall and Barnard Tunnel projects are entitled to be paid at heavy and 

highway

construction wage rates. I do not agree with all that is said by the Court in 

reaching that 

result or with the Court's approach to the statutory definition of "heavy and highway

construction wage rates."

 I do agree with the Court that the "such as" language in the 18-2-401(5), MCA,

listing of projects requiring heavy and highway construction wage rates reflects a

legislative intent that the list be inclusive rather than exclusive. Stated 

differently, the

"such as" list is merely illustrative of the types of projects properly designated 

"heavy and

highway construction" projects. That being the case, it is unnecessary for the 

Court to 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-488%20Opinion.htm (6 of 7)4/16/2007 11:39:00 AM
96-488

"force feed" the Edsall and Barnard Tunnel projects into one of the actual categories

listed in 18-2-401(5), MCA, and that approach results in a somewhat strained

interpretation that these projects are "utility rights of way." 

 Given the inclusive rather than exclusive listing contained in 18-2-401(5), 

MCA,

all that is necessary to conclude that the workers in this case are entitled to 

heavy and

highway construction wage rates is to establish that the projects are of the same 

type or

nature as those listed in the statute. Here, that is a relatively easy task.

 The projects involved the demolition of existing, and construction of new,

sidewalks and roads. Thus, in the language of the statute, they can be likened to 

heavy

and highway construction projects involving "alteration or repair of roads, 

streets. . .[or]

trails. . . ." More importantly, they involved underground tunnel work much more

similar to utility pipeline and power line projects than to conventional building

construction projects for which heavy and highway construction wage rates are not

required. In addition, of course, the formal names of the Edsall and Barnard Tunnel

projects--"Engineering/Physical Sciences Building, Utility Tunnel" and "Underground

Utility Phase II, Montana State University," respectively--reflect that the projects 

were

utility-type projects. That the projects were not located on utility rights of way 

does not

change the nature of the projects.

 I would conclude that the Edsall and Barnard Tunnel projects are of the same 

type

and nature as the projects listed in 18-2-401(5), MCA, for which heavy and highway

construction wage rates are required. For that reason, I join the Court in 

reversing the

District Court.

 /S/ KARLA M. GRAY

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-488%20Opinion.htm (7 of 7)4/16/2007 11:39:00 AM