Court Opinion

ID: 9865158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:25:31.7315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:39.042705
License: Public Domain

*215Mr. Justice Otto Bock
specially concurring.
I concur in the dismissal of the complaint. I do think, however, that this should be done on the merits, and not on the motion to dismiss. There is ample evidence upon which to sustain the finding of the trial court that a dispute existed about the prevailing rates of wages as applied to the alleged contract within the meaning of section 257, chapter 97, ’35 C.S.A. That being true, there could be no valid agreement, because the rates, in the event of a dispute, must first be determined by the Industrial Commission in order to become “an essential element of the contract.” Denver Trades Council v. Vail, 103 Colo. 364, 86 P. (2d) 267; Industrial Commission v. State Federation of Labor, 107 Colo. 206, 110 P. (2d) 253. To be valid, the rate level, under the circumstances, must be ascertained before the contractual stage is reached, not afterwards.
There being here no contract, there was no “liability” which was released, extinguished, altered, modified or changed by H.B. 992, amending section 257, supra, approved April 15, 1941, on which section 4, chapter 159, ’35 C.S.A., could operate. The freezing of wage levels on construction contracts, in which the state is a party, and which involves the employment of laborers or mechanics, whether wise or unwise, is solely a legislative problem.