New York Law Review

Tag: Apprenticeship Programs

  • Matter of Joint Industry Board v. Commissioner of Labor, 68 N.Y.2d 794 (1986): Apprenticeship Requirements under NY Labor Law

    Matter of Joint Industry Board v. Commissioner of Labor, 68 N.Y.2d 794 (1986)

    Under New York Labor Law § 220, workers on public works projects must be paid the journeyman’s prevailing wage unless they are individually registered in a state-approved apprenticeship program, even if they are enrolled in a federally-approved trainee program with similar standards.

    Summary

    This case concerns whether contractors violated New York Labor Law § 220 by paying “trainee” electricians, enrolled in a federally-approved program, less than the prevailing wage for journeymen on a state-funded project. The Commissioner of Labor found that because the trainees were not registered in a state-approved apprenticeship program, they were owed the difference in wages. The contractors argued that the federal trainee program was functionally equivalent. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commissioner’s decision, emphasizing the statute’s clear requirement of state registration while suggesting legislative re-examination of the law’s impact on policies aimed at reducing discrimination in the construction industry.

    Facts

    Petitioners, contractors on a State-funded project at the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, employed electricians classified as “trainees” who were paid less than the prevailing wage for journeymen electricians. These trainees were part of a program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor but not with the New York State Department of Labor. The Commissioner of Labor determined that the contractors violated Labor Law § 220 by failing to pay the prevailing wage. The trainee programs were designed to encourage participation by individuals traditionally excluded from the skilled trades, such as women and minorities.

    Procedural History

    The Commissioner of Labor adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings that the contractors had violated Labor Law § 220. The Commissioner directed that the wage difference and a civil penalty be paid from moneys the State owed the contractors. The contractors appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner’s order. This appeal followed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Labor Law § 220 requires workers on public works projects to be paid the journeyman’s prevailing wage if they are not individually registered in a state-approved apprenticeship program, even if they are enrolled in a federally-approved trainee program with similar standards designed to promote equal opportunity.

    Holding

    Yes, because Labor Law § 220 unambiguously requires individual registration in a state-approved apprenticeship program to be paid apprentice-level wages on public works projects, regardless of enrollment in similar federally-approved programs. The Court was constrained to affirm the decision based on the unambiguous language of the statute, despite the laudable policy goals of the federal trainee programs.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the 1966 amendments to Labor Law § 220 were enacted to prevent the subversion of prevailing wage laws by contractors using sham training programs. The amendments established a clear standard: only state-registered apprentices could be paid less than journeyman wages. The court acknowledged the importance of the federally-approved trainee programs in combating discrimination in the construction industry, noting that such programs served goals consistent with the State’s equal opportunity policies. However, the Court found the statutory language to be clear and unambiguous: “Serving laborers, helpers, assistants and apprentices shall not be classified as common labor and shall be paid not less than the prevailing rate of wages * * * No employee shall be deemed to be an apprentice unless he is individually registered in an apprenticeship program which is duly registered with the industrial commissioner”. The Court also reasoned that allowing federally-approved trainees to be paid apprentice wages without state registration could lead to wage debasement by allowing contractors to exceed the permissible ratio of learning-level employees to journeymen. The court suggested that the Legislature should re-examine Labor Law § 220 to address the unexpected frustration of policies aimed at reducing discrimination in the construction labor force, given the potential impact of the decision on the operation of trainee programs in the State.

  • Matter of Roosevelt Raceway, Inc. v. Monaghan, 24 N.Y.2d 465 (1969): Retroactivity of Statutes Affecting Contractual Obligations

    Matter of Roosevelt Raceway, Inc. v. Monaghan, 24 N.Y.2d 465 (1969)

    A statute or amendment is presumed to apply prospectively unless the language clearly indicates a contrary intention, especially when the statute creates new rights or obligations that could impair existing contractual agreements.

    Summary

    Roosevelt Raceway contracted with the State to perform electrical work, specifying two classes of workmen: electricians and electrician-apprentices. After the contract was executed, New York amended its Labor Law to require individual registration in an apprenticeship program for employees to be considered apprentices. The Industrial Commissioner argued that because the employees were not registered as apprentices, they were entitled to electrician wages from the amendment’s effective date. The court held that the amendments could not be applied retroactively to the existing contract because they created new obligations and rights and could impair the existing contractual obligations.

    Facts

    In November 1965, Roosevelt Raceway contracted with the State of New York for electrical work at the State armory in Manhattan. The contract and specifications defined two classes of workers: “electrician” and “electrician-apprentice-lst term.” When work began in February 1966, Roosevelt Raceway hired employees as apprentices, paying them less than electricians, but equal to or exceeding the prevailing rate established for apprentices. In September 1966, New York amended Labor Law § 220(3), requiring individual registration in an apprenticeship program for employees to be deemed apprentices. A further amendment in July 1967 stipulated that unregistered employees be paid wages corresponding to the work they performed.

    Procedural History

    The Industrial Commissioner, following the amendments to the Labor Law, held hearings and determined that because certain employees were not registered in an apprenticeship program as of September 1, 1966, they were entitled to wages as “mechanic electricians.” The Appellate Division partially agreed with the Industrial Commissioner’s determination but the case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether amendments to Labor Law § 220(3), requiring apprenticeship program registration, apply retroactively to contracts executed before the amendments’ effective dates, where such application would create new obligations and rights and potentially impair existing contractual obligations.

    Holding

    No, because the amendments create new requirements that, if unmet, offer immediate recourse to employees, and applying them retroactively would impair existing contractual obligations. The case was remitted for further proceedings regarding the employees’ original claim that they were hired and performed work as electricians.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the amendments to the Labor Law should not be applied retroactively. The court reasoned that the postponement of the effective dates of the amendments indicated a legislative intent for prospective application. “[I]t is axiomatic that an amendment will have prospective application only, unless its language clearly indicates that a contrary interpretation is to be applied.” The court emphasized that the amendments did more than prescribe procedural requirements; they created new requirements that employers had to meet, providing employees with immediate recourse if these requirements were breached. This creation of new rights and obligations distinguished the case from situations involving mere procedural changes. The court also noted that retroactive application could raise constitutional concerns by imposing new conditions on existing contracts, potentially impairing their obligations. The court stated, quoting Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reineche, that “where the effect of the statute ‘is to create a right of action’ which did not previously exist, it is presumed that the statute was intended to have only prospective application.” While addressing the retroactivity issue, the Court noted that the employees had also claimed they performed the work of electricians. The Court was unable to determine the veracity of this claim, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for a proper determination.

  • Matter of State Commission for Human Rights v. Farrell, 24 N.Y.2d 961 (1969): Enforceability of Court-Ordered Aptitude Tests

    Matter of State Commission for Human Rights v. Farrell, 24 N.Y.2d 961 (1969)

    A court-ordered aptitude test, despite its imperfections, should be upheld when implemented in good faith and without evidence of improper conduct by the candidates who relied on the established procedure.

    Summary

    This case concerns the validity of an aptitude test administered under a court order designed to prevent racial discrimination in apprenticeship programs. Despite concerns about the test’s reliability due to repeated use of the same questions, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to uphold the test results. The court reasoned that the candidates acted in good faith by preparing for the test as prescribed by the court order, and absent evidence of misconduct, the results should not be invalidated mid-process. The decision highlights the challenges in devising fair and effective methods for combating discrimination and the importance of maintaining consistency once a system is in place, even if it’s imperfect.

    Facts

    The State Commission for Human Rights initiated proceedings to address racial discrimination in building trades apprenticeship programs. The Supreme Court ordered an aptitude test to be administered by New York University. The same examination was given to apprenticeship applicants for three successive classes. Some applicants who failed previous exams received tutoring, which included familiarization with previous test questions. The New York University Testing and Advisement Service reported that, in numerous instances, the grades did not furnish a true index of the abilities of the applicants.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court authorized the examination. The Appellate Division affirmed the results of the examination. The Court of Appeals was asked to review the lower court decisions, which had upheld the validity of the aptitude test results, despite concerns about the testing methodology.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a court-ordered aptitude test, administered to prevent racial discrimination in apprenticeship programs, should be invalidated due to concerns about its reliability and the potential for coaching and foreknowledge of the questions.

    Holding

    No, because the candidates acted in good faith by preparing for the test as prescribed by the court order, and absent evidence of misconduct, the results should not be invalidated mid-process. Changes should not be made while the candidates are playing the game, in the absence of evidence of ulterior conduct, after they have legitimately expended time and money in endeavoring to qualify themselves to be examined and hired as apprentices under the present procedure.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court acknowledged the concerns raised about the reliability of the aptitude test, particularly the fact that the same questions were used in multiple administrations and that some applicants received tutoring that gave them an unfair advantage. However, the court emphasized that the candidates acted in good faith by preparing for the test as it was prescribed by the court order. The court also noted that there was no evidence of improper conduct by the candidates or the tutoring services. The court reasoned that changing the rules mid-process would be unfair to those who had legitimately expended time and money in preparing for the examination. The court suggested that the testing system might need to be reconsidered and that other or supplementary methods of avoiding racial discrimination might need to be devised and put into effect. However, the court concluded that, at this stage, the system established by the court order should not be reversed in midstream. As Justice Van Voorhis stated in his concurrence, “[T]he rules should not be changed while the candidates for apprenticeships are playing the game, in the absence of evidence of ulterior conduct, after they have legitimately expended time and money in endeavoring to qualify themselves to be examined and hired as apprentices under the present procedure.”