492 P.3d 963
Cal.2021Background
- Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) contracted Parsons to design and install a Positive Train Control (PTC) system paid for with public funds (project > $216 million). Work included field (wayside towers, signals) and onboard (equipment installed in locomotives/rail cars) tasks.
- Wabtec subcontracted to perform onboard electrical/install work exclusively on rolling stock; it did not perform field work and did not pay prevailing wages to its employees.
- Plaintiff Busker, a Wabtec onboard electrician, filed a prevailing wage complaint; the DLSE initially assessed over $6 million in unpaid prevailing wages/penalties but later vacated the assessment based on long‑standing agency practice excluding rolling stock.
- Busker sued; the federal district court granted summary judgment for Wabtec, holding onboard work is not "public work" under Lab. Code §1720(a)(1) and §1772 does not expand coverage.
- The Ninth Circuit certified the state-law question to the California Supreme Court: whether onboard work on rolling stock is (1) "construction" or "installation" under §1720(a)(1) or (2) covered as integral to other public work under §1772.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does onboard work on rolling stock qualify as “public works” under Lab. Code §1720(a)(1) as "construction" or "installation"? | Busker: "construction"/"installation" are broad common‑sense terms that encompass work on rolling stock; statute and purpose support coverage. | Wabtec: §1720(a)(1) historically and contextually refers to fixed works on real property; rolling stock is movable and not covered. | Held: No. "Construction"/"installation" in §1720(a)(1) are read in context of "public works" and are generally limited to fixed works on real property; rolling stock is excluded. |
| 2. If not independently covered, is onboard work nevertheless "public work" because it is integral to field work/the overall PTC project (§1772 and "complete integrated object" theory)? | Busker: §1772 and related case law treat work integrated into the construction flow as covered; onboard work is essential to the integrated PTC system. | Wabtec: §1772 does not expand the statutory categories of "public works"; Oxbow/Cinema West involve public vs private funding questions and do not transform non‑land work into "construction." | Held: No. §1772 does not enlarge the statutory definition of "public works." Work not defined as public work is not converted into such merely because it is functionally connected to or necessary for other covered work. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations, 34 Cal.4th 942 (2004) (construe prevailing wage law liberally but in context; discussed "construction" as forming a "complete integrated object")
- Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (1992) (explains overall purpose of prevailing wage law and independent statutory wage obligations)
- Oxbow Carbon & Minerals, LLC v. Department of Industrial Relations, 194 Cal.App.4th 538 (2011) (applied "complete integrated object" test to public vs private funding question)
- Cinema West, LLC v. Baker, 13 Cal.App.5th 194 (2017) (applied integration/complete integrated object reasoning where public funds contributed to larger integrated facility)
- De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., 21 N.Y.3d 530 (2013) (New York case holding certain vessel repairs covered under a different statutory scheme; distinguished here)
- Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co., 219 U.S. 24 (1910) (federal decision noting "public works" not always confined to land; discussed in comparative context)
- O.G. Sansone Co. v. Department of Transportation, 55 Cal.App.3d 434 (1976) (interpreting §1772 to cover functions "integral" to execution of public works contract, e.g., dedicated material delivery)
- Williams v. SnSands Corp., 156 Cal.App.4th 742 (2007) (applied Sansone to limit coverage where offsite work was independent of prime contract's performance)
- Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Assn., Local 104 v. Duncan, 229 Cal.App.4th 192 (2014) (offsite fabrication not covered where work was remote and not integrated into onsite construction)
- Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal.3d 56 (1969) (addressed scope of original prevailing wage law; discussed in historical analysis)
- State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. City of Vista, 54 Cal.4th 547 (2012) (explains prevailing wage law purpose to protect local labor markets)
- Universities Research Assn. v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754 (1981) (historical context for prevailing wage enactments during Depression Era)