Opinion ID: 2629967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Application of the prevailing wage law to the claimants

Text: City Plan alleges that because the claimants involved are undocumented aliens, NRS 422.065 expressly precludes City Plan from being required to pay them prevailing wages. According to City Plan, the Attorney General and the Labor Commissioner aided and abetted these illegal acts of bestowing public benefits on the claimants at the two administrative hearings, one district court proceeding, and now on appeal. NRS 422.065(1)(b) provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a person or governmental entity that provides a state or local public benefit . . . [i]s not required to pay any costs or other expenses relating to the provision of such a benefit after July 1, 1997, to an alien who, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1621, is not eligible for the benefit. Section 1621(c)(1) defines a [s]tate or local public benefit as: (A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government; and (B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government. Here, no payments of costs or expenses related to a state or local public benefit are at issue. While the public works contract between the county and City Plan may constitute a public benefit under § 1621, the payment of the prevailing wage under that contract does not constitute such a benefit. City Plan is simply not the entity providing the public benefit contract under the statute and, therefore, is not included in the statute's express terms excusing payment. Instead, the payment of the prevailing wage is required when an entity enters into a contract to perform a public work. [22] Thus, NRS 422.065 does not apply. Likewise, we conclude that NRS 612.448, which addresses the payment of unemployment benefits based on an alien's status, does not apply because the issue at hand involves the payment of prevailing wages, not unemployment benefits. The statutes that apply, NRS 338.040 and NRS 338.050, address those persons deemed to be employed on public works and therefore entitled to prevailing wages. Neither section excludes an individual on the basis of his immigration status. Furthermore, the Legislature amended NRS Chapter 338 in 2003 and mandated that the prevailing wage laws be enforced [w]ithout regard to whether an employee or workman is lawfully or unlawfully employed. [23] This further evidences the Legislature's intention that any worker falling within the purview of the prevailing wage laws be paid accordingly regardless of his status as an illegal alien. In 1999, NRS 338.050 specifically stated that all workers employed by a contractor or subcontractor who perform work on a public work are subject to the provisions of NRS 338.010 to NRS 338.090. [24] At that time, NRS 338.040 provided that [w]orkmen . . . necessary in the execution of any contract for public works are deemed to be employed on public works. [25] And, NRS 338.010(14) defined workman as a skilled mechanic, skilled workman, semiskilled mechanic, semiskilled workman or unskilled workman. The claimants fall within the definition of workman, and City Plan, a contractor, hired them to perform duties on a public work. It follows, therefore, that City Plan was required to pay claimants the prevailing wage regardless of their alien status. Allowing City Plan to hire undocumented workers and pay them beneath the prevailing wage scale because they are undocumented would circumvent the purpose of the prevailing wage statutes and would only encourage others to hire undocumented aliens to perform necessary work. Therefore, we conclude that the claimants' immigration status does not relieve City Plan of the duty to pay the required prevailing wage. Finally, City Plan argues that the Labor Commissioner inappropriately classified the claimants as laborers and carpenters, without the statutory authority to do so and, therefore, engaged in ad hoc rule making. According to City Plan, this act is unfair because Nevada law fails to provide any job classifications, and it is virtually impossible to set wage rates without also establishing the corresponding classifications. This argument is unpersuasive. NRS 338.030 sets forth the procedure for determining prevailing wages. Subsection 1 of that statute states that [t]he public body awarding any contract for public work . . . shall ascertain from the Labor Commissioner the prevailing wage . . . for each craft or type of work. The Labor Commissioner's determination of the craft or work classification is an inherent part of the process. Therefore, the Labor Commissioner is obligated to define a classification or type of work and then to determine the prevailing wage for that classification. This conclusion is supported by NAC 338.007, which was added by amendment in August 2000 and states that a `[r]ecognized class of workmen' means a class of workmen recognized by the Labor Commissioner as being [in] a distinct craft or type of work for purposes of establishing prevailing rates of wages. This language demonstrates that the Labor Commissioner has the authority to determine and distinguish classifications of workers. Additionally, when acting in an adjudicative capacity, the Labor Commissioner must make any classification determination necessary to a complaint's resolution. [26] Here, the Labor Commissioner simply applied the evidence to his predefined classifications to determine each claimant's appropriate wage. Consequently, we reject City Plan's claim that the Labor Commissioner engaged in ad hoc rulemaking.