New York Law Review

Tag: R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc.

  • R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 20 N.Y.3d 473 (2013): Applying Prevailing Wage Laws to Public Entities

    R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 20 N.Y.3d 473 (2013)

    Prevailing wage laws apply only to construction contracts entered into by specific public entities enumerated in the statute; volunteer fire departments, absent explicit statutory inclusion or agency relationship, are not subject to these laws.

    Summary

    R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. contracted with the Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD) for the construction of a new firehouse. The New York State Department of Labor (DOL) determined that the project was subject to prevailing wage laws. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that BVFD, a not-for-profit fire corporation, did not fall under the definition of a public entity as contemplated by Labor Law § 220. The Court clarified that the prevailing wage law applies only to contracts involving the state, a public benefit corporation, a municipal corporation, or a commission appointed pursuant to law. The Court rejected the argument that the BVFD was the “functional equivalent” of a municipal corporation, emphasizing the need for explicit statutory inclusion.

    Facts

    The Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), a not-for-profit fire corporation, decided to build a new firehouse after the Village of Bath declined to do so. BVFD obtained its own financing, acquired land, and hired R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. (Taylor) as the general contractor in September 2006. Taylor then hired subcontractors. The Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter stating the project was a public work subject to prevailing wage laws, halting construction until BVFD agreed to indemnify Taylor and its subcontractors against any liability for not paying prevailing wages. Construction then resumed and was completed.

    Procedural History

    An administrative hearing was held to determine if the prevailing wage law applied. The Hearing Officer determined it did, based on the Erie County test. Petitioners commenced an Article 78 proceeding for review. The Appellate Division confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals granted petitioners’ motion for leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to a construction contract entered into by the Bath Volunteer Fire Department, a not-for-profit fire corporation not explicitly listed as a public entity in the statute.

    Holding

    No, because BVFD is not one of the public entities enumerated in Labor Law § 220, nor was it acting as an agent on behalf of a covered public entity at the time the contract was executed. The Court emphasized that the “functional equivalent” test was rejected in Matter of New York Charter School Assn. v Smith.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that Labor Law § 220 specifically enumerates the types of public entities to which the prevailing wage law applies: the state, a public benefit corporation, a municipal corporation, or a commission appointed pursuant to law. The BVFD, as a fire corporation defined by the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, does not fall into any of these categories. The Court rejected the argument that BVFD could be deemed the “functional equivalent” of a municipal department, citing Matter of New York Charter School Assn. v Smith, (15 NY3d 403 [2010]), where it rejected the same argument regarding charter schools. The Court stated: “Had the legislature intended to include volunteer fire corporations under the statute, it could easily have done so.” The service agreements between the BVFD and the Village of Bath were deemed insufficient to trigger the prevailing wage requirement because they pertained to emergency services, not the construction of a new firehouse, stating, “The service agreements do not include any provision contemplating the work involved here: the construction of a new firehouse.” Therefore, the service agreements are not a contract for public work within the meaning of the prevailing wage law. Because the first prong of the Erie County test (public entity) was not met, the Court did not need to address the second prong (public work).