Matter of Lantry v. State of New York, 6 N.Y.3d 49 (2005)
The Department of Labor is not required to conduct surveys of local contractor practices to determine the appropriate trade classification for prevailing wage rate purposes and may rely on factors such as collective bargaining agreements, jurisdictional agreements, and the nature of the work itself.
Summary
Lantry, a contractor, challenged the Department of Labor’s (DOL) methodology for classifying work to determine prevailing wage rates, arguing the DOL should consider survey evidence of local contractor practices. The DOL determined Lantry underpaid employees by classifying window installation work as glazier work instead of the higher-paid ironworker classification. The Court of Appeals held that the DOL need not conduct local contractor surveys and that the Commissioner’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious, emphasizing the DOL’s discretion in considering collective bargaining agreements and the nature of the work.
Facts
Lantry, a subcontractor, installed preglazed windows for a school district, paying his non-union employees the glazier’s wage rate. The Department of Labor (DOL) audited the project and determined the employees should have been paid the higher ironworker rate, resulting in an underpayment assessment. Lantry requested a hearing, anticipating the DOL would use a “prevailing practice in the locality” approach, relying on surveys of local contractors. Lantry presented evidence that local contractors predominantly paid glaziers’ rates for preglazed window installation.
Procedural History
The administrative hearing officer accepted the DOL’s ironwork classification. The Commissioner adopted the hearing officer’s findings. Lantry then commenced an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the Commissioner’s order. The Appellate Division confirmed the determination. The Court of Appeals granted Lantry leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Labor is required to consider survey evidence of local contractor practices when classifying work for the purpose of determining the appropriate prevailing wage rate under Labor Law § 220.
Holding
No, because nothing in Labor Law § 220 mandates that the Commissioner consider actual contractor practices in a locality when classifying work, and the Commissioner’s methodology is upheld as long as it is not unreasonable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that Labor Law § 220 does not mandate the Commissioner to consider actual contractor practices when classifying work. The Court emphasized that trade classifications are within the Department’s expertise and should not be disturbed unless clearly inconsistent with the work performed. The Commissioner generally analyzes the specific nature of the work, collective bargaining agreements, jurisdictional agreements, and past Bureau recognition. The Court acknowledged that collective bargaining agreements could be relied upon. In instances where multiple unions claim jurisdiction, the Department expands its review to encompass factors such as jurisdictional agreements and the nature of the work. The court found the Department’s mission is to ensure workers are paid the correct wage initially, necessitating trade classification before project commencement. The court quoted Matter of Kelly v Beame, 15 NY2d 103, 109 (1965), stating that “[t]he pivotal question” is the nature of the work performed in reviewing the Department’s trade classifications.
The Court distinguished the case from Matter of Cortland Glass Co., where a contrary determination was reached, noting that the Commissioner explicitly overruled Cortland Glass to the extent it held that actual practice evidence is relevant to classifying work. The Court of Appeals deferred to the Commissioner’s expertise, finding the classification of the task as ironwork neither arbitrary nor capricious.