Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Court Sets Aside County Commissioners’ Common Wage Determination

An unpublished Indiana Court of Appeals decision has cast doubt as to how municipalities may calculate the common wage scale for public construction projects.

In Board of Commissioners in County of Allen v. Northeastern Indiana Building Trades Council, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Allen Superior Court, which set aside the Allen County Commissioners’ decision to adopt the wage scale proposed by Associated Builders and Contractors, Indiana Chapter, Inc., (ABC) for a public works project. In Board of Commissioners in County of Allen v. Northeastern Indiana Building Trades Council, the court unanimously held that a union had associational standing to sue on behalf of the members of its constituent unions and that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the Commissioners’ decision. A 2-1 majority of the court also reversed the Commissioners’ decision that the adopted wage scale comported with the “common construction wage” in the county as required by Indiana Code § 5-16-7-1(d).

The Court of Appeals had previously held that the phrase “common construction wage” is defined as “the scale of wages that are most commonly paid in the community.” To support its proposed wage scale, which was below that paid by unionized contractors, ABC provided the Commissioners with the results of a wage survey that it sent to its member contractors and other non-union employers. 

Although roughly 90 percent of contractors in Allen County are non-unionized, the court held that “it cannot be inferred that non-union contractors pay more employees at the most common non-union wage than do union contractors at the most common union wage.” The Court concluded that the survey could not accurately reflect the prevailing wage because it essentially excluded the unionized contractors, who likely paid higher wages.  The opinion was concerned with the fact that while most of the area’s contractors were non-unionized, it was unclear how many workers were employed by the unionized contractors and therefore how common the unionized wages actually were.

Despite the survey supporting the Commissioners’ decision, the Court of Appeals held that there was no substantial evidence supporting the common wage decision.

The court’s memorandum decision can be found at: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06151101mgr.pdf  read more

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Mark Crandley is a partner in the Litigation Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis, Indiana office. Mr. Crandley has a diverse practice that concentrates on appeals, municipal and constitutional law, employee benefits, probate and guardianship matters as well as general commercial litigation.

317-261-7924

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.