Filed 6/29/15

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

FLOYD HENSON et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

C. OVERAA & COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

 A139966

 (Alameda County

 Super. Ct. No. RG11610366)

INTRODUCTION

This appeal arises out of a dispute over the meaning of certain provisions of the 

Prevailing Wage Law and Shelley-Maloney Apprentice Labor Standards Act of 1939 

(Shelley-Malony Act)1relating to the employment of apprentices on public works 

projects. Floyd Henson, Gabriel Maestretti, and Leonard Minor (appellants) assert that 

C. Overaa & Company (respondent) violated the statutes by hiring construction craft 

laborer (laborer) apprentices instead of pipefitter apprentices to work on the construction 

of certain water treatment plants.

2

 Appellants are pipefitter apprentices, and they seek to 

represent a class of similarly situated individuals who lost wages and training as a result 

 

1

The Prevailing Wage Law is codified at Labor Code section 1770 et seq., and the 

Shelley-Maloney Act at Labor Code section 3070 et seq. Hereinafter, all statutory 

references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified. All references to the Code 

of Regulations are to title 8 of that code unless otherwise indicated. Specific regulations 

are referred to as “Regulation__” and cited as “Reg. § __.”

2 An apprentice is a person who is at least 16 years of age who has entered into a 

written apprenticeship agreement with an employer or sponsor which provides the 

apprentice with a program of training and instruction in a particular occupation. 

(§ 3077.) A journeyman is a person who has completed an accredited apprenticeship 

program or has equivalent training. (Reg. § 205, subd. (a).)
2

of respondent’s alleged violations. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 

respondent on the ground the journeymen on the relevant projects were classified as 

laborers, and the Prevailing Wage Law merely required employers to hire apprentices 

who are in the same occupation as the journeymen on their projects. Appellants assert 

the trial court erred because the statutes require a contractor to select apprentices based

not on their job title or union affiliation but the work processes on which they have been 

expressly approved to train. We find the argument unpersuasive and affirm.3

BACKGROUND

A. Legal Background

The Prevailing Wage Law requires that contractors on public works projects pay 

their employees union wages. (§§ 1770, 1773.) Among other things, the goals of the 

statute are “to protect employees from substandard wages that might be paid if 

contractors could recruit labor from distant cheap-labor areas; [and] to permit union 

contractors to compete with nonunion contractors.” (Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry

(1992) 1 Cal.4th 976, 987.) Prevailing wage rates are set by the Department of Industrial 

Relations (DIR) and are predicated on applicable wage rates established by collective

bargaining agreements within the locality and in the nearest labor market, among other 

factors. (§ 1773.) Where the rates are not prevailing in a locality, DIR must obtain and 

consider additional data from the labor organizations and employers or employer 

associations concerned. (Ibid.) Prevailing wage rate determinations generally list the 

scope of work and craft classifications to which the rates apply. 

If the Prevailing Wage Law required contractors to pay all employees union

wages, it would present a significant obstacle to the hiring and training of lesser-skilled 

 

3

The parties have filed five requests for judicial notice in connection with this 

appeal. Appellants’ May 13, 2014 request has already been granted. We also grant 

appellants’ September 18, 2014 request and February 18, 2015 request, as well as 

respondent’s April 10, 2015 request. Respondent’s June 26, 2014 request is denied.
3

apprentices. (See Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Com. v. MacDonald (9th Cir. 1991) 

949 F.2d 270, 274.) “The basic idea of an apprenticeship program is to allow on-the-job 

training for apprentices who work under the supervision of journeymen and thus to 

encourage and assist persons to enter into the skilled work force . . . . In order for such an 

apprenticeship program to work, it is essential that the employer be able to pay lesser 

wages to apprentices while they are in training.” (Ibid.) 

The drafters of the Prevailing Wage Law took these considerations into account. 

The statute allows contractors to pay an apprentice a lower “apprentice wage” if that 

apprentice is enrolled in a state-approved apprenticeship program. (§ 1777.5, subds. (b) 

& (c).) Thus, while the sponsor of an apprenticeship program need not obtain state 

approval, there are significant financial incentives to do so. (Southern Cal. Ch. of 

Associated Builders Etc. Com. v. California Apprenticeship Council (1992) 4 Cal.4th 

422, 428–429.) Further, the statute requires employers who hire workers in an any 

“apprenticeable craft or trade” to also hire a certain number of apprentices. (§ 1777.5, 

subd. (d).) Specifically, contractors must hire at least one apprentice for every five 

journeymen employed on the public works; however, an approved apprenticeship 

program may grant an exemption under certain circumstances. (§ 1777.5, subds. (g) & 

(k).) To facilitate training opportunities, the Prevailing Wage Law requires contractors to

endeavor to employ apprentices during the same time period that journeymen in the same 

craft or trade are employed at the jobsite. (§ 1777.5, subd. (h).)

Apprenticeship standards and training are governed by the Shelley-Maloney Act, 

which provides that the Director of DIR is ex officio the Administrator of 

Apprenticeship. (§ 3072.) Apprenticeship standards are also administered by two 

entities under the auspices of DIR: the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) and 

the California Apprenticeship Council (CAC). (§ 3070.) The chief of DAS administers 

the apprenticeship law, acts as secretary to CAC, and is empowered to investigate 

standards for apprenticeship programs. (§§ 3073, 3090.) Those wishing to establish a 
4

state-sanctioned apprenticeship program must submit written apprenticeship standards to 

DAS for approval. (Reg. § 212). Among other things, the written standards must include 

a statement of “the occupation(s) and an outline of the work processes in which the 

apprentice will receive supervised work experience and training on the job.” (Reg. § 212, 

subd. (a)(1).) 

CAC meets at the direction of DIR and aids DIR in the formulation of polices for 

the effective administration of apprenticeship laws. (§ 3071.) CAC is also empowered to 

issue rules and regulations which establish standards for apprenticeship programs and 

criteria for the selection procedure of apprentices, among other things. (Ibid.) Under the 

Prevailing Wage Law, contractors who employ workers in any apprenticeable craft or 

trade must make contributions to CAC, but may take as a credit for payment any amounts 

paid to an approved apprenticeship program that can supply apprentices to the site of 

their public works project. (§ 1777.5, subd. (m)(1).) 

B. Facts and Procedural History

Respondent is a general contractor and a signatory to a collective bargaining 

agreement (CBA) with the Northern California District Council of Laborers (Laborers 

Union). The CBA requires respondent to employ construction craft laborers represented 

by the Laborers Union. The CBA also obligates respondent to hire apprentices enrolled 

in the state-approved apprenticeship program sponsored by the Laborers Union. 

Whenever possible, respondent must rotate laborer apprentices through different types of 

work so that they may become trained in a variety of work operations and work skills. 

This case arises out of respondent’s construction work on dozens of water and 

sewage treatment systems in Northern California, including those owned by the East Bay 

Municipal Utility District and the Alameda County Water District. A significant portion 

of the work on many of these projects involved the installation of sophisticated, three 

dimensional pipe systems, sometimes referred to as “process piping.” Pursuant to the 

CBA, respondent hired journeymen and apprentice laborers to perform this work.
5

Appellants contend the laborer apprentices hired by respondent were not qualified 

to work on process piping, though they do not contest respondent’s decision to hire 

laborer journeymen for the projects. The DAS-approved apprenticeship standards for the 

Laborers Union’s apprenticeship program indicate that apprentices receive instruction 

and training on “[p]ipelaying work traditionally performed by Construction Craft 

Laborers,” as well as “[p]ipeline and utility construction.” Appellants’ expert opined that 

pipelaying, as traditionally performed by laborers, bears little resemblance to process 

piping since pipelaying “is work with a minimum number of engineering and physical 

constraints . . . and is performed in a two dimensional environment.” 

Appellants assert that respondent should have instead hired apprentices from an 

approved pipefitting apprenticeship program, such as the one in which appellants are 

enrolled. Appellants’ program is sponsored by the United Association of Journeymen 

and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (Pipefitters Union), a union 

with which respondent does not have a collective bargaining agreement. The Pipefitters 

Union program provides classroom instruction and on-the-job training on process piping,

which involves, inter alia, cutting, threading, bending, beveling, welding, and assembling 

various types of pipe. According to the Pipefitters Union, there are no other DASapproved programs that offer training and instruction on these process piping skills.4

Appellants filed this putative class action against respondent in December 2011, 

claiming that they lost wages and on-the-job training hours as a result of respondent’s 

refusal to hire pipefitter apprentices. They seek to represent all apprentice pipefitters 

 

4 Appellants also assert that O*NET, a recognized dictionary of occupational 

definitions and descriptions, demonstrates that the work of pipefitters and laborers 

involve separate work processes. According to O*NET, the tasks performed by laborers 

are limited to controlling traffic, preparing construction sites, signaling equipment 

operators, loading and unloading building materials and equipment, measuring and 

recording distances to layout areas, digging ditches and trenches, mixing and pouring 

concrete, tending pumps and related equipment, and erecting and dismantling 

scaffolding. 
6

registered on out-of-work lists in the geographic areas where, and in the time period 

during which, respondent employed laborers on the projects at issue. Appellants allege

that respondent is liable under the Unfair Competition Law because it violated section 

1777.5 and other relevant provisions of the Prevailing Wage Law. According to 

appellants, section 1777.5 requires contractors to hire apprentices who are enrolled in 

programs approved to train and instruct on the specific tasks that the apprentices will 

need to perform on the project. 

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent. The court held

the Prevailing Wage Law requires contractors which employ journeymen in any 

apprenticeable craft or trade to also employ apprentices from the same craft or trade. It 

further held that the term “craft or trade” refers to the journeymen’s trade or occupation, 

not the work processes in which they engage on any given day. The court concluded that 

respondent had no obligation to hire pipefitter apprentices because it did not hire 

pipefitter journeymen or other workers represented by the Pipefitters Union. 

This appeal followed. Various organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of 

respondent, specifically: Northern California Laborers’ Joint Apprenticeship Training 

Committee, United Contractors, Construction Employers Association, and Associated

General Contractors of California. Among other things, the amici assert this case arises 

out of a long-running jurisdictional dispute between the Pipefitters Union and the 

Laborers Union over whether the members of the Pipefitters Union should have the 

exclusive right to perform process piping work on municipal water plant projects. They 

also assert a ruling in favor of appellants would force respondent and other contractors to 

breach their CBAs with various unions.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment must be granted if all the papers and affidavits submitted, 

together with “all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence” and uncontradicted 
7

by other inferences or evidence, show “there is no triable issue as to any material fact and 

that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., 

§ 437c, subd. (c).) Where, as here, the defendant is the moving party, he or she may meet 

the burden of showing a cause of action has no merit by proving one or more elements of 

the cause of action cannot be established. (Id., subd. (o).) The defendant may do so by 

offering affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of 

action or by offering the plaintiff’s factually insufficient discovery responses. (Brantley 

v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598.) Once the defendant has met that burden, 

the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as 

to that cause of action. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583.) 

We review the trial court’s summary judgment determinations de novo. (Sangster 

v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.) “We are not bound by the trial court’s 

stated reasons or rationale. Instead, we review the summary judgment without deference 

to the trial court’s determination of questions of law. [Citations] We may consider only 

those facts which were before the trial court, and disregard any new factual allegations 

made for the first time on appeal.” (Ibid.)

B. Plain Language of the Statute

This dispute primarily turns on Labor Code section 1777.5, a provision of the 

Prevailing Wage Law pertaining to the employment of registered apprentices. In 

interpreting the statutory provisions at issue, our primary task is to determine the 

lawmakers’ intent. (Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798.) To 

determine intent, we first look to the plain language of the statute. (Ibid.) Where the 

statutory language is clear and unambiguous, that language controls and there is no need 

for judicial construction. (Ibid.) However, that does not mean that we view the language 

of the statute in isolation. (MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc.

(2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1083.) “Rather, we construe the words of the statute in 

context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose,” and “[w]e will not follow the plain 
8

meaning of the statute ‘when to do so would “frustrate[] the manifest purposes of the 

legislation as a whole or [lead] to absurd results.” ’ ” (Ibid.)

Turning to the statutory text, subdivision (b) of section 1777.5 states: “Every 

apprentice employed upon public works . . . shall be employed only at the work of the 

craft or trade to which he or she is registered.” Subdivision (c) states only apprentices 

training under apprenticeship standards approved by DAS are eligible to be employed at 

the apprentice wage rate on public works, and that employment and training of each 

apprentice shall be “in accordance with” either (1) the apprenticeship standards and 

agreements under which he or she is training, or (2) the rules and regulations of CAC. 

Under subdivision (d), when a contractor on public works “employs workers in any 

apprenticeable craft or trade, the contractor shall employ apprentices in at least the ratio 

set forth in this section and may apply to any apprenticeship program in the craft or trade 

that can provide apprentices to the site.” Subdivision (g) clarifies that “[t]he ratio of 

work performed by apprentices to journeymen employed in a particular craft or trade on 

the public work” shall in no case be less than one to five. Subdivision (h) requires the 

contractor to “endeavor, to the greatest extent possible, to employ apprentices during the 

same time period that the journeymen in the same craft or trade are employed at the 

jobsite.” 

The trial court held the statute requires contractors to hire apprentices in the same 

craft or trade as the journeyman on a public works project, and the craft or trade of a 

journeyman should be understood to refer to the journeyman’s occupation, not the work 

processes in which the journeyman is engaged on any given day. Under the trial court’s 

reading, if an apprentice is called a laborer and training in an apprenticeship program 

sponsored by the Laborers Union, that apprentice is authorized to perform the type of 

work in which laborer journeymen and other members of the Laborers Union engage. 

Appellants contend the trial court erred because, under section 1777.5, it is the stateapproved written apprenticeship standards that control how a public works contractor 
9

must employ and train apprentices, and which apprentices the contractor must hire. 

Citing to subdivision (c) of the statute, appellants argue “[e]mploying apprentices ‘in 

accordance with’ their apprenticeship standards means giving them jobs (and only those 

jobs) that teach the skills of their apprenticeship programs.” According to appellants, 

only pipefitter apprentices are eligible to work on the relevant projects because DAS has 

authorized only the Pipefitters Union’s apprenticeship program to offer instruction and 

training on process piping. 

We agree with the trial court. The Prevailing Wage Law requires that apprentices 

on public works projects “be employed only at the work of the craft or trade to which he 

or she is registered” (§ 1777.5, subd. (b)), and the plain language of the statute indicates 

an apprentice’s craft or trade is defined by the type of work carried out by the 

journeymen and other members of the union sponsoring the apprentice’s training 

program. Specifically, section 1777.5 repeatedly refers to craft or trade in terms of the 

type of work performed by journeymen. Section 1777.5 subdivision (d) provides that 

when a contractor employs workers in an apprenticeable craft or trade, the contractor 

must also hire apprentices from an apprenticeship program in that craft or trade. 

Subdivision (g) refers to the ratio of work performed by apprentices to journeymen 

employed in a “particular craft or trade.” Likewise, subdivision (h) states contractors 

should endeavor to employ apprentices during the same time period the journeymen in 

the “same craft or trade” are employed at the jobsite. This interpretation is also 

consistent with regulations promulgated under the Shelley Maloney Act, which state that 

“[w]ork of the craft or trade consists of job duties normally assigned to journeymen in the 

apprenticeable occupation.” 5 (Reg. 230.1, subd. (c).)

 

5 Appellants contend that the definition of “apprenticeable occupation” is key to 

resolving this dispute. We disagree. The regulations merely define the term to 

distinguish it from other types of occupations. Specifically, the regulations provide: “An 

‘Apprenticeable Occupation’ is one which requires independent judgment and the 

application of manual, mechanical, technical, or professional skills and is best learned 
10

Under this interpretation, respondent did not violate section 1777.5. The 

apprentices hired by respondent are enrolled in the Laborers Union’s apprenticeship 

program, which has been approved by DAS, and are training to become laborers. The 

journeymen on the jobsites identify as laborers and are members of the Laborers Union. 

Moreover, appellants do not dispute that the members of the Laborers Union hired by 

respondent are qualified to construct and install process piping on the relevant projects. 

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude the craft or trade of a laborer encompasses such work 

processes, and that the apprentices and journeymen hired by respondent share the same 

craft or trade.

Appellants argue that, notwithstanding their title and union affiliation, the craft or 

trade of the journeymen and apprentice laborers assigned to the relevant projects differ. 

In appellants’ view, journeymen who install process piping are pipefitters, even if they 

call themselves laborers and belong to the Laborers Union. But the Prevailing Wage Law 

does not offer any hard and fast rules concerning how to determine the craft or trade of a 

journeyman. Rather, it indicates that DIR should defer to the craft classifications adopted 

by unions in their collective bargaining agreements. Specifically, section 1773 states that 

a body awarding a public works contract “shall obtain the general prevailing rate of per 

diem wages . . . for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the 

contract from [DIR].” It further states that, “[i]n determining the rates, [DIR] shall 

ascertain and consider the applicable wage rates established by collective bargaining 

agreements . . . .” By implication, DIR cannot determine a prevailing rate without 

considering the craft, classification or type of worker involved. Thus, “the definition of 

 

through an organized system of on-the-job training together with related and 

supplemental instruction.” (Reg. § 205, subd. (c).) Likewise, the Prevailing Wage Law 

defines “apprenticeable craft or trade” to distinguish the term from other types of crafts or 

trades that do not require apprenticeship training: “ ‘Apprenticeable craft or trade,’ as 

used in this section, means a craft or trade determined as an apprenticeable occupation in 

accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by [CAC].” (§ 1777.5, subd. (d).)
11

the craft, classification or type of worker is an inherent part of the determination of that 

craft, classification or type of worker’s single proper prevailing rate of per diem wages.” 

(Sheet Metal Workers Internat. Assn., Local Union No. 104 v. Rea (2007) 

153 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1082 (Rea).)6

Appellants point out DIR regulations define a journeyman as a person who has 

“completed an accredited apprenticeship in his/her craft” or “who has completed the 

equivalent of an apprenticeship in length and content of work experience and all other 

requirements in the craft which has workers classified as journeyman in the 

apprenticeable occupation.” (Reg. § 205, subd. (a).) According to appellants, this means 

a journeyman is a person who mastered the set of skills that the state has recognized as 

defining the apprenticeable craft or trade, and who is therefore qualified to teach new 

workers who also wish to master that trade. But nothing in the regulation indicates 

certain skills, such as process piping, may not be mastered by several kinds of 

journeyman or that a journeyman is limited to performing the work processes on which 

his or her apprenticeship program has been authorized to train.

Appellants also assert the trial court ignored section 1777.5, subdivision (c), which

requires that the employment and training of each apprentice is “in accordance with”

either the relevant apprenticeship standards or the rules and regulations of CAC. As they 

point out, pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Shelley-Maloney Act, 

apprenticeship standards submitted for DAS approval must include “an outline of the 

work processes in which the apprentice will receive supervised work experience and 

 

6 Moreover, to the extent that appellants seek to challenge the craft classifications 

of the journeymen laborers hired by respondent, this is not the appropriate forum. “[A]ny 

representative of any craft, classification or type of workman,” may petition DIR to 

review a rate determination (§ 1773.4), and by implication the definition of the craft, 

classification or type of worker to which that determination applies (Rea, supra, 

153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1082). The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies bars 

any later civil action where a party fails to first request DIR review. (Id. at p. 1080.) 
12

training on the job, and the allocation of the approximate time to be spent on each major 

process.” (Reg. § 212, subd. (a)(1).) However, apprenticeship standards also include “all 

the terms and conditions for the qualification, recruitment, selection, employment and 

training, working conditions, wages, employee benefits, and other compensation for 

apprentices . . . .” (Reg. § 205, subd. (f).) There is no indication the laborer apprentices 

at issue were denied proper wages or benefits or were recruited in an improper manner. 

Rather, appellants merely contend that the apprentices received additional training in 

processes that were not expressly listed in the laborer apprenticeship standards originally 

approved by DAS.

We cannot conclude this additional training constituted a violation of the relevant 

apprenticeship standards, since those standards set a floor, not a ceiling. The ShelleyMaloney Act provides: “Nothing in this chapter or in any apprentice agreement approved 

under this chapter shall operate to invalidate any apprenticeship provision in any 

collective agreement between employers and employees setting up higher apprenticeship 

standards.” (§ 3086.) This provision “makes it clear that the Shelley-Maloney Act was 

not intended to operate as a comprehensive and exclusive means of regulating 

apprenticeship programs. Rather, given its voluntary nature and its express allowance for 

higher standards, it is clear the Shelley-Maloney Act was only intended to set minimum 

apprenticeship standards which individual programs are free to supplement.” (Associated 

General Contractors of America v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2011) 

195 Cal.App.4th 748, 761.) Thus, respondent was free to train laborer apprentices in 

work processes beyond those set forth in the apprenticeship standards approved for the 

Laborer Union’s program. Appellants argue this reading of the statute cannot be squared

with Regulation 212, which states that “[i]n order to be approved, [apprenticeship] 

standards must cover all work processes within the apprenticeable occupation.” But 
13

Regulation 212 merely pertains to the approval process for apprenticeship standards; it 

does not expressly limit the type of work in which an apprentice may engage.7

Appellants also argue CAC endorsed their interpretation of section 1777.5 in a 

recent resolution, issued after the judgment of the trial court, which states in relevant part: 

“[T]he Council confirms that Labor Code section 1777.5 requires public works 

contractors to employ apprentices who are training under apprenticeship standards that 

include the specific work processes that will be performed by the contractors’ journeylevel employees, and to assign apprentices only work that is included in the 

apprenticeship standards under which the apprentices are training. Apprentices on public 

works cannot be assigned work other than that which is stated in the work processes of 

the apprenticeship standards under which the apprentices are training.” (CAC Res. on 

Employment of Apprentices on Public Works, affd. at regular CAC meeting, Oct. 30, 

2014.) 

As respondent points out, the CAC enacted this resolution to address an issue 

different from the one presented by this case. Specifically, the resolution was prompted 

by complaints from a pipefitter training coordinator that public works contractors were 

assigning pipefitter apprentices work outside of their program’s work processes.8 The 

 

7 We also observe that appellants could have brought an administrative challenge 

concerning the relevant apprenticeship standards. The Shelley-Maloney Act provides 

that “[u]pon the complaint of any interested person . . . the administrator may investigate 

to determine if there has been a violation of the terms of an apprenticeship agreement 

. . . .” (§ 3081.) Determinations of the administrator may be appealed to CAC (§ 3082), 

and CAC’s decisions are subject to judicial review (§ 3084). Further, under DIR 

regulations, appellants could have filed a complaint with DAS alleging noncompliance 

with section 1777.5, including “fail[ure] to properly employ apprentice(s) by assigning 

apprentice(s) to perform work outside the craft or trade of the apprenticeable 

occupation . . . .” (Reg. § 231, subd. (a)(6)(C).) 

8

The coordinator’s complaints were set forth in a letter to the CAC. Appellants 

argue we should not take judicial notice of the letter because it is not an official act of the 

CAC. As appellants point out, courts have declined to take judicial notice of letters 

submitted to an administrative agency that are not part of the agency’s decision. (See 
14

coordinator’s complaint was referred to a CAC committee on rules and regulations, 

which held a meeting on the issue. At the committee meeting, speakers from other 

apprenticeship programs reported similar problems. One speaker explained how a 

plumber apprentice had been employed full-time as a truck driver and backhoe operator. 

Nothing in the record suggests the CAC was concerned about the selection of apprentices

by public works contractors, the primary issue on appeal. Rather, the CAC focused on 

the specific tasks to be assigned to apprentices after they have been selected by a 

contractor.

Appellants argue the CAC resolution is clear and unambiguous, and thus there is 

no need to look beyond its text to determine its meaning and the meaning of section 

1777.5. We disagree. The weight to be accorded administrative interpretations, such as 

the one set forth in the CAC resolution, “turns on a legally informed, commonsense 

assessment of their contextual merit.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of 

Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 14.) Specifically, the deference due to the resolution 

“ ‘will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its 

reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors 

which give it power to persuade . . . .’ ” (Ibid., quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944) 

323 U.S. 134, 140.) We therefore cannot consider the text of the resolution in a vacuum. 

Since the CAC’s resolution addresses a question distinct from the one presented by this 

appeal, its interpretation of section 1777.5 is entitled to little deference. That the 

resolution was promulgated while this litigation was ongoing and was prompted by 

 

Citizens Utilities Co. v. Superior Court (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 399, 411.) However, in 

this case, the coordinator’s letter was the impetus for the CAC’s action. Moreover, the 

letter is expressly discussed in CAC documents that were the subject of appellants’ 

request for judicial notice. Appellants also argue the letter and other agency materials 

contained in respondent’s request for judicial notice set forth an incomplete and 

misleading account of CAC’s deliberations. However, appellants have made no attempt 

to introduce other records that would support a different interpretation of CAC’s intent in 

enacting the resolution.
15

complaints from individuals associated with the Pipefitters Union further undermines its 

persuasive value.

For these reasons, we find that the plain language of the Prevailing Wage Law and 

Shelley-Maloney Act support the trial court’s finding that respondent was not required to 

employ pipefitter apprentices for the relevant projects. 

C. Legislative History

When the plain meaning of the text does not resolve a question of statutory 

interpretation, we may examine extrinsic sources, including the statute’s legislative 

history. (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1988) 46 Cal.3d 736, 

741.) To the extent that there is any ambiguity in the plain language of the Prevailing 

Wage Law and Shelley-Maloney Act, the legislative history does not support appellants’

interpretation of the statutes. As appellants point out, since the statutes were first enacted 

in the 1930s, the Legislature has vested increasing authority in state agencies to regulate 

the specific content of apprenticeship programs by enacting the statutory provisions

discussed above. However, appellants have pointed to nothing in the legislative history, 

such as prior amendments, committee reports, or floor debates, that directly address how 

the term “craft or trade” should be defined in the context of section 1777.5. In any event, 

we need not look to the legislative history as the statutory text is clear. 

D. Other Interpretive Aids

Where the plain language and legislative history do not resolve ambiguity in a 

statute, then we apply “reason, practicality, and common sense to the language at hand.” 

(Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239.) “If 

possible, the words should be interpreted to make them workable and reasonable 

[citations], in accord with common sense and justice, and to avoid an absurd result.” 

(Ibid.) 

To the extent that such interpretative aids are necessary in this case, they weigh 

against adopting appellants’ view of the statute. As the trial court held, appellants’
16

interpretation “would threaten the onerous and potentially unworkable burden of 

requiring contractors to inventory, for every journeyman deployed to a public work, the 

work processes that s/he will actually utilize on each day of the project, in order to 

determine the extent of the contractor’s apprenticeship requirements. This is much less 

practical than simply calculating hiring needs based upon the number of hours budgeted 

for Laborers, Plumbers, . . ., etc. in each phase of the project.” 

Appellants argue that there is no evidence in the record to support this conclusion. 

But the trial court was merely exploring the logical implications of appellants’ view of 

the statute. The Prevailing Wage Law requires contractors to endeavor, “to the greatest 

extent possible,” to employ apprentices during the same time period as journeyman in the 

same craft or trade. (§ 1777.5, subd. (h).) If, as appellants contend, a journeyman’s craft 

or trade is defined exclusively by the work processes that he or she is carrying out, that 

journeyman’s craft or trade can vary from moment to moment. This would also mean 

that a contractor might need to constantly rotate apprentices to match the craft or trade 

being performed on the jobsite. We agree with the trial court that appellants’ reading of 

the statute has the potential to place an unreasonable burden on contractors.9 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.

 

9 Moreover, as amici point out, many contractors have entered into collective 

bargaining agreements obligating them to hire only apprentices enrolled in programs 

sponsored by particular unions. Adopting appellants’ interpretation of the Prevailing 

Wage Law could force these contractors to make a difficult choice: violate the statute or 

breach their collective bargaining agreements. 
17

_________________________

Dondero, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Margulies, Acting P. J.

_________________________

Banke, J.

A139966
18

Trial Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Steven A. Brick

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP

John J. Davis, Jr.

Andrew J. Kahn

Eric B. Myers

Wohlner Kaplon Phillips Young & Cutler

Jeffrey L. Cutler

Counsel for Defendant and Respondent Cook Brown LLP

Ronald W. Brown

Barbara A. Cotter

Stephen R. McCutcheon, Jr.

Law Office of James P. Watson

James P. Watson

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 

Northern California Laborers’ Joint 

Apprenticeship Training Committee

on behalf of Defendant and Respondent

Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld

Barry E. Hinkle

Roberta D. Perkins

Conceptión E. Lozano-Batista

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 

United Contractors

on behalf of Defendant and Respondent

Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi, PC

Paul V. Simpson

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 

Construction Employers Association

on behalf of Defendant and Respondent

Lawrence H. Kay

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 

Associated General Contractors

on behalf of Defendant and Respondent

Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP

John Stonewall Miller, Jr.

Dwayne P. McKenzie