Long Island Lighting Co. v. Industrial Commissioner, 34 N.Y.2d 725 (1974)

A public utility has the right to challenge the validity of the data used by the Industrial Commissioner in determining the prevailing wage rate for its employees, including the disclosure of the sources of information, especially when the utility is not a competitor of those sources.

Summary

Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) challenged the Industrial Commissioner’s determination of the prevailing wage rate for its employees. LILCO sought disclosure of the data underlying the Commissioner’s determination to assess its validity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order remitting the matter for a further hearing, emphasizing that LILCO, as a public utility, is not a competitor of the contractors providing the wage data. Therefore, concerns about confidentiality and competitive disadvantage were unfounded, and LILCO was entitled to scrutinize the data’s validity, including whether surveyed employees performed similar services and were seasonal or year-round.

Facts

The Industrial Commissioner of New York State determined the prevailing wage rate to be paid to Long Island Lighting Company’s (LILCO) employees. LILCO contested the Commissioner’s determination, arguing that the data used to establish the wage rate was flawed and inaccurate. LILCO requested disclosure of the sources of information used by the Commissioner to assess the validity of the data.

Procedural History

LILCO appealed the Industrial Commissioner’s wage rate determination. The Appellate Division remitted the matter to the respondent for a further hearing, and the Industrial Commissioner appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether Long Island Lighting Company, as a public utility, is entitled to disclosure of the sources of information used by the Industrial Commissioner in determining the prevailing wage rate for its employees, to challenge the validity of the data underlying that determination.

Holding

Yes, because as a public utility, LILCO is not a competitor of the contractors who provided the wage data to the Industrial Commissioner, and therefore, concerns about confidentiality and competitive disadvantage are unfounded, entitling LILCO to scrutinize the validity of the data.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that LILCO, being a public utility, does not compete with the contractors whose wage data formed the basis of the Industrial Commissioner’s determination. The court emphasized that the absence of a competitive relationship negated the usual concerns about protecting confidential business information. Because LILCO was not a competitor, disclosing the sources of information would not give LILCO any undue advantage in future bidding or other competitive scenarios.

The court stated, “Since we are not dealing with sources of information from petitioner’s ‘competitors’, the concern expressed by respondent regarding the destruction of any confidentiality enjoyed in obtaining the vital information, is unfounded. In short, no undue advantage would be obtained as to any possible future bidding that could occur as between true competitors.”

Furthermore, the court found that disclosing the sources would allow LILCO to properly challenge the validity of the data itself. This included determining whether the employees surveyed by the Commissioner performed services similar to LILCO’s employees and whether those surveyed employees were seasonal or year-round workers. These factors would directly impact the accuracy and relevance of the wage data used to determine the prevailing wage rate for LILCO’s employees. The court, therefore, concluded that LILCO had a legitimate basis for seeking the disclosure and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision to remit the matter for a further hearing.