Court Opinion

ID: 9782755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:12:19.910375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:10.948578
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s determination that the Trades Council has associational standing to sue on behalf of the affected members of its constituent unions, and that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, I part ways with my colleagues’ decision to affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the Commissioners’ common construction wage determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the majority determines that the court properly set aside the Commissioners’ determination and granted summary judgment in favor of the Trades Council. I would affirm the Commissioners’ determination because I find substantial evidence to support it.
As pointed out by ABC in its amicus curiae brief, it provided an information packet to the Commissioners during the March 28, 2009 meeting. Specifically Gay-lor, the ABC representative directly responsible for conducting ABC’s common construction wage survey and compiling the results, presented a packet of materials that contained the results of the survey as well as a chart examining union density in the construction industry. The proposed wage scale was based on a return of the survey forms and provided wage scales for all appropriate classes of work.
After this meeting, the Commissioners deadlocked and failed to adopt a wage *948scale. They held another meeting on April 9, 2009. ABC representative Neumeister explained that the ABC wage survey complied with the requirements that it be current, county specific, inclusive of fringe benefits, broken down into skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled workers for each trade classification, and calculated using the mode or most commonly paid wage. He also pointed out that ABC’s presented wage scale had been adopted by more than eighty wage committees in the year immediately preceding the meetings, and that ninety percent of the contractors in Allen County were non-union.
The foregoing evidence supports the Commission’s common construction wage determination. Further, this result is consistent with the result in City of Jasper v. Collignon, 789 N.E.2d 80, 92 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied, wherein our review of the evidence revealed that a wage committee’s determination was rationally based upon Gaylor’s presentation and the ABC survey. I would affirm the Commission’s determination.

ORDER

Appellee Northeastern Indiana Building Trades Council, by counsel, has filed a Motion to Publish.
Having reviewed the matter, the Court FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOW:
1. Appellee Northeastern Indiana Building Trades Council’s Motion to Publish is GRANTED, and this Court’s opinion handed down on June 15, 2011, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication is now ORDERED PUBLISHED.
ROBB, C.J., RILEY and BROWN, JJ., concur.