H on. Tan ya W al t on Pr at tofthe So uthe rnD i s t ri c tof  I ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1920 B EARY L ANDS CAPI NG, I NC ., e tal ., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. J OE C OS T I GAN, i n hi s o ffi ci alcapaci ty as D irector ofthe Il linois D ep artm en t of L abor, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C5697

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judge .
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 29, 2011

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 31, 2012

Befo re P O SNER an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges , a nd P RAT T, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  P OSNER, Cir cu it Judge

. I l l i noi s l aw pro vi des that “w or ke rs . . . em p loy e d b y o r o nbe h alf ofan y p u b lic body e ngage d i n the const ruc tion ordem ol i ti on o f2 N o. 11

- 1920 pu bl i c works ” ( defined as “ al lfi xed w or ks const ructe d or d em olis h ed by an y p u b lic b od y, or p aid for w h oll y o r in p ar t o u t o f p u b lic fu n d s,” 82 0 IL C S 1 30 /2 ) sh all b e p aid “n ot les s th an th e gen er al pr ev ailin g rat e of ho u rly w ag es for w or k of a sim ilar ch ar ac te r on [n on fed er al] p ub li c w orks in the loc a li ty in w hich the w ork i s p erf or m ed. ” 820 I LC S 130/3. The “publi c body a w ar ding [ the] co nt r ac t” is re qui r ed to de te r m i ne whatthe pr ev ai l i ng w age i s, 82 0 I LC S 130/4( a) , but the Depart m ent o fLabor is r equi r ed to c o nduc t annua li nv es ti g at i o ns t o de term i ne the pre vai l i ng w ag e fo r each type o fco nstr ucti on and dem ol i ti on work i n eac h l oca l i ty ( gener al l y defi ned as a c o u nt y, 820 ILC S 130/2) i n w hich suc h w ork i s be in g per f or m ed, and i n pract i ce the publ i c bo die s si m pl y a do pt th atde te r m i na ti o n. T h e D ep ar tm en t’s d e t er m in at ion m ay , th ou gh on ly wi thin 3 0 da y s a ft e r i ti s p ub l i s he d, b e c ha l l e ng e d a dmi ni s t r a t i v e l y b y “ a nyp e r s o n a ffe c t e d” b y i t
. 8 2 0 I LCS 13 0/ 9. If th e D ep ar tm e n t rejec ts th e c h alle n ge , th e c h alle n g e r c an ap p ea l to t h e Illino is c ou rt s. Id

. ; 73 5 I LC S 5/3- 102; se e Hayen v. Co unty of O gle, 46 3 N
. E.2 d 124, 12 6 (Ill. 19 84 ); B eary Land sc aping, Inc. v. Ludw ig, 47 9 F
. S up p. 2d 857, 862 (N
. D
. I ll

. 2007); Pe opl eex re l
. D ep’ tof Labo rv. Skoog Lan ds ca pe& D e s ign , 78 5 N
. E. 2d 99 2, 99 5 ( I l l

. App
. 2003). I fan em p loy er pays l ess than the pr evai l i ng wage t o empl o y ee s wor ki ngo n a no nfede r alpub l i c wor k, the Dep artm ent c an sue f orthe und er paym ent o n behal fo f th e e m p l o y e es an d als o lev y a se p ar at e p en alt y t h at it re ta i n s . 82 0 IL C S 1 30 /1 1; Bran dtCons t r uc t i on Co. v. Ludw ig, 878 N
. E
. 2d 116, 121 (I ll

. A p p . 2007).N o. 11

- 1920 3 A n u m b er of lan d sc ap e c on tr ac to rs in e igh t Illino is c o u n t i e s wh o d o n o n fe d e r a l p u b l i c - wo r k s p r oj e c t s i nvo lvin g c on st ru c tio n ta sk s, su c h as p lan tin g t re es , in st alli ng o rnam ents, so dd i ng and se edi ng , s tabi l i zi ng st re am ba nk s, a nd a ppl y i ngfer ti l i ze r a nd o th erc he m i ca l s to the soi l, br ought thi s s uitag ai nst the Departm ent. They ar gue that i t ha s vio late d the due pro cess cl ause by del egat i ng the as cer tainm ent o fthe preva i l i ng wage forpubl i cl y fi nanced l andscape co nstr ucti on workto private en titi es, na m ely a l abor u nion and the c o n t ractors w i th wh i ch i t h as a col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent. The dis tr i ct j ud ge gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t in f avo r ofthe Dep ar tm ent. La nd s c a pe l ab o r e r s ( a s di s t i nc tf r o m o pe r a t o r s o fe qu i pm ent, i ncl ud i ng trucks, used i n l andscape co n st ructi on proj ects , wh om w e can di sr ega rd) em plo yed bythes e co nt r ac to r s ar e ca l l ed “ p l an ts m en . ” Thi s i s anunc o nv en ti onalusag e

— “pl antsm an” as or dinar i l y unders too d m ea n s eit h er a n e n th u sia st ic and kno w l edgeabl e gard en er or som eon e w ho raises or sell s p la nt s com m erci al l y. But no m att er . Tra dit i onal l y in I l l i noi s pl antsm en i n the sense o fl andscape l abor er s hav e be en r epres ented by the Labo re rs U n ion , wh i ch r epres ents m any o ther ty pes o fc o ns truct i o n labo r era s wel l

. To de te r m i ne the preva i l i n g w age f orl abor er s, the Dep ar tm ent in i ts annual i nvest i gat i ons sim plyas ks the Labo re rs U ni on to ce rt ify t h e c u rre n t w ag e o f lab or er s e m p loy ed in publ i c wor k s ( byl o cality wi th i n I l l i no i s) unde r the U ni on’ s co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent with const ructi on co ntra cto rs . A co ntra c tor who pays a l ower wage t o a w or ke r on a p u b lic w or k t h an th e w ag e s p e c i f ied in4 N o. 11

- 1920 that agr eem ent r ecei ves a dem and l ett erfro m the Departm ent and i fhe doe sn’ t co m plythe Dep ar tm ent c an, as we kno w, s ue hi m ; i t m aya l so b arhi m fr o m b i ddi ng on fut ure pu bli c con tracts i f he is a r e p eat offend er. 820 I LC S 130/ 11a. I n 2 00 5 th e I l l i no i s Lan dsc ape C ont r ac to r s Bar g aini ng Asso ci at i o n s i gne d a c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aininga g r ee m en t w i th the Team ste rs U ni on a nd the I nter na ti onalU ni on ofOperat i ng Engi neer s that s peci fi ed a wage f orpl an tsm entha t w as s ubs ta nt i al l y b el o w the wag e i n the Lab o r er s Uni o n c o l lecti ve b ar g aini ngc o nt r ac t. The I l l i noi s Landscape Contr acto rs A sso c iati on

— a di ffer en t organ izat io n from the Il linois L an d scap e C ont ractors B a r g a i n i n gA s s o c i a t i o n b u tw i th a n o v e r l a p p i n gme mb er sh ip

— ask ed the Dep ar tm ent to re cogni ze pla ntsm en as a su b c las sific at ion of la b o r er s, h av in g t h eir own pre vai l i ng wage, wh i ch the ass oci ati on argued w as th e w ag e s p ec ified in t h e T ea m st er s/ O p er at in g E n gin ee rs col l ecti ve ba rg ain in g a gr ee m en t. (W e s h all r efert o tha t co l l ec ti ve b ar gai ni nga g r ee m en t as the “L an d scap ers C ont ract” and the on e signed by the La borer s Un i on a s the “Labo re rs Contr act. ”) T h e D epart
m en t r efus ed an d i ts r efusal w as uphe l d i n Il l i nois La nds ca pe Cont r ac t ors Ass ’ n v. D epar t m e nt of Labor, 86 6 N
. E. 2d 59 2 ( I l l

. A pp. 20 07 )
. A s a re su l t o ftha t de ci si o n, the Dep ar tm ent, witho u t invest i gat i ng the pre vai l i ng wage for lan d sc ap e la b or er s e m p loy ed on p u b l ic w or ks in the l oca l i ti es i n w hi ch the pla i nti ff s oper ate, co nti nues basingthe p r e v a i l i ngwa g e f o r p l a nt s meno n the wage i n the Labor er s Contr act.N o. 11

- 1920 5 The pla i nti ff s r efuse t o pay thatwage, and have been sued by the Dep ar tm ent i n sta te cour t. Those suits h ave been stayed , how ever, pu rsu an t to 735 I L C S 5/2-619(a)( 3), w hi ch author i zes such a st ay i f t h er e i s a notheract i on p e n d i n g b e t we e n th e s a me p a r t i e s th a t i n v o l v es t he sam e cl aim
. The o theract i on i s thi s s uit, i n w hi ch the pl ai nti ff s a rgue thatbyr ubber

- sta m ping the wage ra te i n the L ab orer s Contr act the Depart m ent has del eg a t e d a g o v e r nme nt a lfun c t i o n t o p r i v a t e e nt i t i es

— th e u n ion, an d th e e m p loy er s w h o h av e s ign e d a c oll ecti ve bar gaini ng co ntra ct with the union . (Th e s tay m ake s the o ther w i se att ra cti ve opti on o f the federa l cour ts’ abs taini ng i n f avo r ofthe sta te cour t’ s e nfo rce m ent ac ti on unavai l abl e. ) The pl ai nti ff s co ntend that th e m on ey th at th e D ep ar tm e n t is se ek in g fro m th em in i ts s ta te c o ur t suits is the i r pr o per ty( whi chi t i s) , a nd that a s tat e that del ega tes the tak i ng o fpri vate pro perty to a pr i va te e nt i tyv i o l at es the no nde l eg at i o n do ct r i ne of constitu tional l aw ( w hich i s som etim es tru e). T h e d o c t r i n e a s u s u a l l y u n d e r s t o o d a n d a p p l i e d , h o weve r, j ust forbi ds Congre ss to del ega te fed er all egi sl ati ve pow er s, wh i ch ar e v est ed i n Congre ss b y A rt i cl e I, se cti o n 1 o fthe Co ns ti tu ti o n, t o a g en ci es wi th o utg i ving them gui dance on ho w the del ega ted powers shoul d be ex er c ise d

. Whitm an v. A m er ic a n Trucking Ass ociati ons, Inc. , 53 1 U .S. 4 57, 472 -76 (20 01 ); M istretta v . U nited Sta tes , 48 8 U .S. 36 1, 37 1-7 3 (1 98 9); Nat io nal Broadc as t i ng Co. v. U n i t e d S ta tes, 3 1 9 U. S
. 1 9 0 , 2 1 5

- 1 6 , 2 2 5

- 2 6 ( 1 9 4 3 ) ( F r a nkfu rt er , J. ); LacCour t eO reill e s Band of La keSu pe r i or C hip pew a Ind ia ns o

f Wisco nsin v . U nited Sta tes , 36 7 F
. 3d 650, 65 8- 59 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. ( W hy guidance shoul d m ake6 N o. 11

- 1920 the de l e g a t i o n o k a y i s un c l e a r, e s pe c i a l l y s i nc e the gui dan ce i s o fte n v ague o r o pen - en ded. ) Butno th i ng in the C on st itu tio n p re sc rib es th e a lloc at ion of p ow er s w ith in st at e g ov er n m en ts , Wha len v . U nited Sta tes , 445 U
. S. 684, 68 9 n . 4 (19 80 ); M ayorof Ci ty of Phi l ade l phi a v. Educatio nal Eq u a l i tyLe ague, 41 5 U .S. 60 5, 61 5 a n d n . 13 (1 97 4); Chic ago Ob s e r v e r, In c . v . C i tyo f Chi cago , 9 29 F.2d 32 5, 328 (7th Cir. 19 91 ); St r al ey v. U t ah Board of Par dons , 58 2 F
. 3d 1208 , 12 15 (10 th C ir. 20 09 ); Cons ol i dat e d Edi s on Co. of Ne w York, Inc . v. Pataki, 29 2 F .3d 33 8, 34 6 n. 4 ( 2d Cir

. 20 02)

— not eve n th e clause gu a r a n t eeing to eac h sta te a rep ub li can f orm of g ove rnm ent, A rt
. I V, § 4. Fo r to be a “r epubli c, ” a st at e o r na ti o n n ee d no t par ce lo utpo wer s among differ en t br anches i n any parti cul arf ashi on, such a s that i n the fede r alCo ns ti tu ti o n. Bu t a n off shoo t o fthe cons ti tuti onalnondel ega ti on doct rin e th at i s a pp l i cabl e t o the s tat es f orbi ds them to a u thor i ze pri vate per sons to depri ve othe r pri vate perso ns o fl i fe, l iber ty, o r proper ty w i thout du e pr oce ss of l aw . T he s t a nd a r d e xa mpl e i s a l a w tha te mpo we r s l a nd

own er s t o determ in e, by w hi m , how a nei ghborm ay use h is ow n p ro p er ty
. Was hi ngt on ex re l
. Se at t l eTit l eTr us tCo. v. Robe rge, 278 U .S. 11 6 , 1 21 -22 (19 28 ); Euban k v. Ci ty of Ric hm ond, 226 U .S. 13 7, 1 43 -44 (19 12 ); cf. P hil ly’s v. B yrn e, 73 2 F .2d 87, 92 (7 th C ir. 19 84 ); Yo un g v . City of Si m i V a l l ey, 216 F.3d 807, 817-18 (9th Cir. 2000). B u t t h e p re se n t c as e is rem ot e fro m th at ex am p le. It doesn’ t invol ve a co m parabl e threa t t o proper ty ri ghts, gi ven s ett l ed law t hat, co ntra ryto o l der unders tandi ngs, author i zes a goo d deal o f“del ega ted” e ncro achm ent o nN o. 11

- 1920 7 p roperty r i ghts. S ee P hil ly’s v. B yrn e, sup ra . A s t a t e can presc ribe a m i ni m um wage, wh i ch i s bo und to be based o n p r i v a t e w a g e de t e r mi n a t i o n s , a n d i tc a n r e q u i r e e mp loy er s t h at h av e c on tr ac ts w ith th e s ta te to p ay th eir em p lo ye es a p re va ilin g w ag e, A tk in v . Ka nsa s, 191 U
. S. 20 7, 22 2

- 2 3 (1 90 3); Frank Bros
. , Inc . v. Wi s co ns i n Dep’ tof Tran s por t at i on , 409 F.3d 880 , 889-90 an d n . 9 ( 7th Cir. 2005 ), w hich i s a m in im um w age d eterm ined by referen c e t o w h at p riv at e e m p l o y e r s are p ay in g. Parke rv. Br own , 31 7 U.S
. 34 1 ( 1943 ) , upheld ag ai nst a varie ty of const i tuti onalchal l enges a sta te prog ra m f ores tabl i s hingmi ni mum pr i c e s f o r r a i s i ns tha twa s a dm i ni ste re d by r ai si n producer s. M i ni m um pro du ct pr i ces ar e an al ogou s to min i m um wag es , whi cha r e m i ni m um pri ces f orl abor se rv ices
. But i n thi s ca se a s tat e a gency m er ely h as d et er m in ed th at p lan ts m e n are co m p ar ab le t o o th e r l a b o r e r s a n d s o s h o u l d r e c e i v e th e s a me m i nim um wage . That i s a r outi ne ty pe ofdeter m i nati on m ade e n r o ut e to fi xi nga pr ev ai l i ngwag e, a nd th e pl ainti ff s ha ve no t sh o wn th atthe de ci si o n in Il li nois Lan ds ca peCont r ac t ors As s ’ n v. D epar t m e ntof La b or that up hel d the dete rm i nati on was unrea sonab l e. They w ou ld n otbe p er m it t e d ev en to try to sh ow it, in th is case at an y rate, bec au se as m em bers of th e c o nt ractors assoc iat io n, sharing th e interest of the oth er m em bers i n de fea tingthe de te r m i na ti o n a nd r epr es en te d b y the sa m e la w ye r w h o re p re se n te d th e a s s o c iat ion in the l and scap e co ntra cto rs cas e, theyar e bo und by that deter m i nati on. S ee St ich ti ng TerBe har t igi ng Van de Bel ange n Van O udaa nde e l houd e rs In HetKapitaa l Van Sa yb o lt Intern a tio na l B .V. v. Sch reiber, 32 7 F
. 3d 173, 18 4- 868 N o. 11

- 1920 (2d C ir. 20 03 ); Tahoe

- Si e r r a P r e s e r vat i on Counc i l, Inc . v. Tahoe R egional Planning A gency, 3 22 F
. 3d 10 64, 1 08 2 ( 9th Cir. 2003 ); E xp er tEle ct r i c, Inc . v. Le vi ne, 55 4 F
. 2d 1227, 12 33- 34 (2d C ir. 19 77 ); 18A C h ar les A lan W rig h t etal., Fe de r al P rac tice an d P roc edu re§ 4456, pp
. 502-05 (2d ed

. 2002). T he ir obj ection, rather, i s to the D ep artm en t’s rubb erst a mpi ng the wa g e i n the Lab o r e r s Co nt r a c t a s the pre va ilin g w ag e fo r p lan ts m en . M ay b e p l an ts m en on p u b lic pr oj ects ar e a ctual l y pai d a di ffer ent wage, and that differ ent wage i s the pre vai l i ng wage forsuch work er s. But bef o r e th e Depa r tment ’ s det er m i na ti o n o f th e pr ev ai l i ngwag e f or la nds ca pe wor k er s be ca m e fi na l, a ny partyo r parti es affecte d by it , s u ch as these pl ai nti ff s, c ou ld o bj ect to the det er m i nati on withi n thi rty days o f i ts po s t i nga nd b y do i ngs o o b t a i n b o th a dmi ni s t r a ti ve an d j udi ci alr ev i ew. The pl aint i ff s d id not o bj ec t to the deter m i nati on. They a rgue thattheyco uldn’ t be cause th eywer en ’ t “pe r so n[ s] affect ed” b y i t, no t y etha ving bi d on publi c l andscape co n structi on proj ects to wh i ch the l ate st annual deter m i nati on of the preva i l i n g w age ( base d on the w age r ate i n the L ab or er s Contr act) w oul d app l y. But they w erea ffec te d pr o spe ct i ve l y . The pri ce th ey bid o n such proj ects wil lbe hi gheri fthey have to pay thatr ate , and th ey w i l lpro babl y hav e t o p ost a larger surety bon d as w ell

. See 820 I L C S 130/4(c). So they w i l lbe l ess l i kel y to b e th e l ow bi dd er s than i f, as si gnato ri es ofthe Land scaper s Contr act, they can pay a low er w age to th eir p lantsm en than their com p etitors w ho em plo y g ener alco nstr ucti on l abor er s whose wages ar e pr escr ibed i n the Labor er s Contr act.N o. 11

- 1920 9 T he plaintiff s argu e th at a ch all en ge to th e D ep artm en t’s deter m i nati on would have bee n futi l e be cause m ost l andscape co ntrac to rs w oul d be a fra i d to buck the Departm ent, and i feno ugh bowed to the ne w deter m i nati on the wa g e i n the Lab o r e r s Co nt r a c two ul d bethe pr ev ai l i ng w age . But that is w ro ng to o, bec ause i fthe pla i nti ff s’ chal l enge succee d ed, ei theras a dir ect chal l enge oras an affi rm ati ve defe nse in an e nfo rce m ent a cti on, the Depar tmentwoul d b e r equi r ed to r ec al cul at e th e pr ev ai l i ng w age. 735 I L C S 5/3-111(a)( 5)-( 6); Haye n v . C o un ty of O gle, sup ra , 463 N
. E.2 d at 1 26; se e a l so 820 I LC S 130/9. Gi v e n th e s e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e a n d j u d i c i a lr emed i e s , we c on c lu d e t h at th e Illino is leg isla tu re a n d th e Illino is D ep artm en t of L abor h aven ’t delegate d regulatory po wert o pr i va te pa r ties ( na m ely the s i g na to r i es o fthe Lab o r er s Uni o n c o l l ec ti ve barga i ni ngc o nt r ac t)
. But bef or e e ngra ving thi s co ncl usi on in sto ne we need to ad d res s the lone ca se th at m ight be th ou gh t to sup p ort th e p lain tiffs ’ p os itio n : G enera l E lectric C o . v. New Yo rk St at e D ep’t of Labor, 936 F.2d 144 8, 1457 -59 (2d C ir. 1991). H av i ngpa i d a l o werwag e to e l ec tr i ca lwor k er s th ana wag e dee m ed bythe s ta te de par tmento fl abor to b e th e preva i l i ng wage ( f orpubli c proj ect s) thathad bee n fi xed i n c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en ts b etwee n a uni o n a nd an as soc i ati on o fele ctr i calco ntra cto rs , GE chal l enged as an unconsti tutio naldel ega ti on o fgo ver nm entalpow erto pr i va te e nt i ti es the l aw unde r whi chthe de par tment h ad d et er m in ed th e p re va ilin g w ag e. T h e c ou rth eld that the c hal l enge had pri m a f aci e m er i t: The t w o “ adve r sa r y ” par ti es [ th e uni o n a nd the contr acto rs as so c iati on] se t a r el ati vel y l ow rat e for10 N o. 11

- 1920 el ectr i calwork done i n the pri vate se cto r i n or der ( fr o m th e uni o n’ s per spe ct i ve ) to m ak e em p l o y m en t o funion wor k er s m o r e at tr ac ti ve t o e m pl o y er s, a nd ( fro m the em plo yer s’ per specti ve) t o achi eve l ower l aborco sts for p riv ate se cto r em plo yer s. A hi gher w ag e ra te for p u b lic w o r k p r oj ec ts w as ag re ed to in o r der( from the uni o n’ s per spe ct i ve ) t o make up som e o fthe w age s l osto n the pri vate se cto r w or k, an d ( fr o m th e em pl o y er s’ pe r spe ct i ve ) t o g i ve the uni o ns hi g he r w age s wi th o utthe e m pl o y er s i ncurr i ng g re ate r l aborco sts since the h igh erwages w oul d be pass ed on t o the t axpayer s. I fthi s i s in f act w hat o ccu rr ed

— an d we e xpr es s no vi ew as to wh etherit d i d ordi d not

— then nei ther si de w as f or ced to curb i ts sel f

- i nter est, a n d t he r ate s set in th e a g reem en t are pot en tially arbitrary b e c a us e the y r e fl e c tn o tthe wa g e r a t e s o fa n a dve r sa rialmar k et pl ac e, b utthe wag e r at es i n a s et ting ske w ed by the b ar gaini ng par ti es’ kno w i ng use of th eir ag re em en t t o a c h iev e s elfis h en d s. . . . Thu s, the Dep ar tm en t’ s pro cedures see m notto i nvol ve the e xerci se ofany discreti on in set ti ng pre vailingwage and supplem ent r ate s. The st ate ’ s insi stence thati t doe s no t m er el y t ake w h ate verr ate s the unio ns subm i t, but set s the preva i l i ng rat e at th ata ctua l l y pa i d i n th e loca l i tymay wel lb e th e c as e, bu t w e m u st ta ke as t r u e fo r p u rp os es of th is appeal GE ’ s al l ega ti ons re gar ding the a ctualpro cedure f ol l owed bythe sta te. This disputed f act i s m ate ria lbec ause both col l ecti ve barga ining a g r eem en ts from w hich the rates w ereN o. 11

- 1920 11 draw n expli ci tl y pr ovi de f ortwo w ag e ra tes , and bar ap p li cation of th e low er w age rate to p u b li c w ork p roj ec ts . I f th is t w o w ag e ra te sy st em w as co llu siv ely neg o t i a t e d, a nd s i mpl y a do pt e d p r o f o r ma b y the sta te ( w i thout exer ci si ng anydi sc re tio n) as the r esul ti ng wage r ate s, thi s w oul d cl ear l y e stabl i sh an unc o ns ti tu ti o na lde l eg atio n o fa utho r i tyunde r the s t a t ut e a s a pp l i e d. Id

. at14 57- 59. The cour t thus ass i m i l ate d the ca se to on es w e ci ted ear l i eri n w hi ch a sta te orl oca lgo ver nm ent a ut hor i zes l andow ners to i m pai r at w i l lthei r n eig h b or s’ pro perty r i gh ts. Tha t i s no t th e ch ar ac te r o fthe a ct i o n b y the I l l i no i s Depa r tmento fLabo r . I t m er ely de ci ded whatthe r el ev an t ca te g o r y o f wor k er s o n publ i c land sc aping proj ects was ( nam el y l abor er s) and hence what co l l ecti ve ba r g aini nga g r ee m en t i t sh o ul d l o o kt o f o r de te r m i ni ng the pr evai l i ng wage r ate f orworke rs i n that cate gory. The deci si on t o l ook t o the Labo re rs Contr act ra therthan to th e L a n d s c a p e r s C o n t r a c tt o d e t e r mi n e th e p r e v a i l i ng wa g e f o r p l a n t s me n wa s r e a s o n ab l e . Ev e n i fth e y o u tn u mbero therl abor er s o n m ostpubli c l an d scap i ng proj ects , m an y o ftho se pr oj ec ts a r e no t su bj ec t to the Pr ev ai l i ng W ag e Act, a s we l ea r n fr o m a c ha r t p ub li she d o n the Dep a r t men t ’ s we b s i t e : “ Pr e v a i l i ngWag e Ac t : Co v e r a ge ofLandscaping A ctivi ti es, ” w w w .st at e.il.u s/ ag en c y/ id ol/ f o r ms/pd f s / PWLa nd s c a pe Ra t e s . pd f( visited Jan

. 16, 2012 ). Foraught that appears, constr ucti on work er s do m ost o fthe l a nd s c a pi ngwo r ko n pu b l i c p r oj e c t s tha ta r e s ubj ect to the Act, thus m aking the i r w age

— th e w ag e in12 N o. 11

- 1920 the Labo re rs Contr act

— the p r e v a i l i ngwa g e o fl a nd s c a pe laborers (plant sm en ). I l l i noi s’ s pro cedure i s furtherdi stingui shabl e fro m N ew Y or k’s be c au se of th e 3 0-d ay d ea d lin e fo r c h all e n g i n g th e I l l i n o i s d e p a r t me n t ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n o ft he preva i l i ng wage. That deadl i n e is proxi m ate eno ugh to the ini ti alwag e d ete rm i nati on t o m ake the chal l enge proce edi ng par t o fthe w age - set ti ng pro cess r atherthan proce ss bel ate d l y b est owed afteran unconst i tuti onal del ega ti on i s co m ple te. A FFI RMED .

1- 31- 12