Case Name: STATE of Missouri, ex rel. Leroy J. KRAEMER and Alfred Zlotopolski, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW HAVEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1991-06-11
Citations: 813 S.W.2d 45
Docket Number: No. 59156
Parties: STATE of Missouri, ex rel. Leroy J. KRAEMER and Alfred Zlotopolski, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW HAVEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 813
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, ex rel. Leroy J. KRAEMER and Alfred Zlotopolski, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW HAVEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
No. 59156.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
June 11, 1991.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 23, 1991.
Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 10, 1991.
Ronald C. Gladney, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Thomas A. Mickes, Timothy J. Sarsfield, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to defendants who are comprised of the New Haven School District, its superintendent, and its board of directors. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment which would require defendants to pay the prevailing wage rate, Section 290.220, RSMo 1986, to workmen doing construction work on two of defendants' schools. The trial court determined that defendants had complied with the procedure set out in Section 177.086, RSMo 1986, had rejected all bids, and hired their own employees to construct the project.
We have reviewed the record and authorities relied upon by plaintiffs. We affirm the trial court s order granting summary judgment. There was substantial evidence on the record which indicated the workmen were defendants' employees. A school district is not required to pay the prevailing wage rate to its own employees. City of Joplin v. Industrial Comm, of Mo., 329 S.W.2d 687, 692 (Mo. banc 1959); State ex rel. Ashcroft v. City of Sedalia, 629 S.W.2d 578, 585 (Mo.App.1981).
No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).