Court Opinion

ID: 9883868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:23:29.678838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:03.210168
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge,
concurring specially.
Respondents, a contractor and subcontractor, seek an award of money damages for appellant’s failure to make full payment on a contract dated October 14, 1984. Respondents contend that appellant has no right under the contract to insist on payment of higher wages to employees of respondent C & C Teletronics or to withhold money for that purpose. This is not a proceeding of C & C employees to determine wages mandated by Minn.Stat. § 177.43 (1986). See Minn.Stat. §§ 177.-41-.44. Likewise, this is not a proceeding by the State Department of Labor and Industry to enforce payment of prevailing wages according to the mandate of section 177.43. See Minn.Stat. § 177.43, subd. 6 (mandate for department enforcement of obligations under the section); section 177.-43, subd. 5 (criminal penalties for noncompliance with the statute). The litigation here turns on the contract of the parties.
The contract between the parties called for minimum wage payments for an agreement calling for “construction, alteration or repair of University buildings or other structures.” On the evidence of record, the trial court could properly determine that employees of C & C Teletronics did not do work constituting construction or repair of buildings.
Projects covered by the prevailing wage requirement of section 177.43 include those involving construction or repair “of a public building or other public work financed in whole or part by state funds.” Minn.Stat. § 177.42, subd. 2 (1986). On the evidence of record, the trial court could properly determine that C & C Teletronics employees were not involved in construction or repair of “a public building.” Clearly and specifically, the trial court analyzed only the question whether these employees were involved in building construction or building repair.
In 1986, the New Mexico Supreme Court dealt with a proceeding by the New Mexico Labor and Industrial Commissioner to enforce the prevailing wage law of that state. See Universal Communications Systems v. Smith, 104 N.M. 754, 726 P.2d 1384 (1986). Universal Communications turned solely on the language of the New Mexico Public Works Minimum Wage Act, N.M.StatAnn. § 13-4-11 (1978). The New Mexico statute uses language resembling the words chosen by the parties here in their October 1984 contract. The statute governs contracts involving construction or related improvements “of public buildings.” The holding of the New Mexico court is persuasive in support of the trial court’s decision under the contract of the parties in this case.
Unlike the New Mexico statute, the Minnesota prevailing wage statutes cover construction and repair of public buildings or of any “public work” other than buildings. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry believe that the Minnesota statute governs the wage payment obligations of C & C Teletronics to its employees. The department’s argument is premised on the statutory language covering all public work projects. The merits of the department’s position have not been determined in these proceedings.
The trial court wrote an extensive memorandum on the topic of construction and repair of public buildings. The court did not address the public work provision of section 177.42, subd. 2. In fact, arguments on that provision of the statute were not presented to the court, because the court elected against hearing the propositions of the Department of Labor and Industry in a contractual dispute between private parties. The court entered judgment for recovery of money under the October 1984 contract. “[Ujnder the contract at issue,” the trial court concluded in its order for *765judgment, the prevailing wage statute mandates did not apply. According to specific language in the contract, state wage rate determinations did not apply for contracted services other than those for construction or repair of “buildings or other major structures.”
There is reason here to be concerned about language of the trial court and language of this court which may suggest a decision as to whether or not the prevailing wage statute applies to the employment services of those who worked for C & C Teletronics on the University job. Nothing decided in these proceedings deals with that general question, because these proceedings have never addressed the meaning and import of statutory protection for all public work projects. Because the breadth of coverage for public works projects has not been addressed by the trial court or this court, it is not given further attention here. Any such observations in these proceedings would be mere dicta. That question must be resolved in other proceedings, whether those brought by the C & C Teletronics employees or proceedings initiated by the Department of Labor and Industry.
I concur specially.