195 Cal. App. 4th 748
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- California governs apprenticeship via the Shelley-Maloney Act (Labor Code §3070 et seq.) administered by the Department; the PWL regulates apprentices on public works and provides incentives for approved programs; SDUSD adopted Proposition S funding and negotiated a project stabilization agreement (PSA) with local unions requiring bidders to employ apprentices from department-approved programs; AGC challenged the PSA as intruding on the Department’s regulatory power and violating the PWL; the trial court denied AGC’s petition, and the appellate court affirmed; the PSA requires use of a California Apprenticeship Council–approved joint labor-management program on Proposition S projects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the SDUSD PSA violate the Shelley-Maloney Act or PWL by mandating a specific apprenticeship program? | AGC contends PSA infringes the Department’s regulatory power and the PWL. | SDUSD maintains PSA aligns with statutory framework and uses market-participant authority. | No conflict; PSA is consistent with Shelley-Maloney Act and PWL. |
| Does the PWL limit public agencies from requiring a particular apprenticeship program? | AGC argues the PWL confines agencies to contractor-selected programs. | SDUSD asserts the PWL permits market-participant conditions and selection through agreement. | PWL allows agencies to advance proprietary interests when consistent with statute. |
| Is there an unlawful intrusion into the department’s regulatory power by SDUSD’s PSA? | AGC claims the PSA intrudes on department’s oversight of apprenticeship standards. | SDUSD views PSA as a market-participant decision consistent with statutory scheme. | No regulatory intrusion; PSA does not conflict with statutory framework. |
| Do federal or state authorities require uniform apprenticeship standards, preventing district-specific choices? | AGC asserts uniform standards restricts district preferences. | SDUSD relies on voluntary Shelley-Maloney Act framework and market-participant rationale. | Shelley-Maloney Act is voluntary and allows higher standards; no barrier to district choice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Comm., 21 Cal.4th 352 (Cal. 1999) (PSAs; prehire agreements; public project construction rationale; NLRA compatibility)
- Building & Constr. Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors (Boston Harbor), 507 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1993) (prehire agreements permissible under NLRA; government as market participant)
- Alioto’s Fish Co. v. Human Rights Comm. of San Francisco, 120 Cal.App.3d 594 (Cal. App. 1981) (market-participant rationale for contracting clauses that exceed standard statutes)
- Burns International Security Servs. Corp. v. County of Los Angeles, 123 Cal.App.4th 162 (Cal. App. 2004) (market-participant doctrine; contracting obligations beyond statute upheld)
- Southern Cal. Ch. of Associated Builders etc. Com. v. California Apprenticeship Council, 4 Cal.4th 422 (Cal. 1992) (Shelley-Maloney Act standards are voluntary; department approvals; subsidies)