238 Cal. App. 4th 184
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are pipefitter apprentices who claim they lost wages and on-the-job training when defendant C. Overaa & Company hired Laborers Union journeymen and laborer apprentices to install process (three-dimensional) piping on public water/sewage projects.
- Overaa is signatory to a CBA with the Laborers Union and used Laborers Union–sponsored, DAS‑approved laborer apprenticeship program; it did not have a CBA with the Pipefitters Union whose apprentices train specifically in process piping.
- Plaintiffs allege Overaa violated Labor Code § 1777.5 (Prevailing Wage Law) by not employing pipefitter apprentices whose DAS‑approved standards expressly include process piping work processes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Overaa, reasoning § 1777.5 requires contractors to hire apprentices in the same craft or trade as the journeymen employed on the project (i.e., occupation/union classification), not based on the apprenticeship program’s listed work processes.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding the statute’s plain language and related regulations treat “craft or trade” as defined by the journeymen’s occupation/union classification and that DAS‑approved standards set minimums (not ceilings) for training content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1777.5 requires contractors to hire apprentices whose approved apprenticeship standards specifically match the work processes performed on the job | § 1777.5(c) and DAS standards mean apprentices may be assigned only to work listed in their program’s approved work processes; thus only pipefitter apprentices may do process piping | § 1777.5 requires apprentices be in the same craft/trade as the journeymen on the job (occupation/union classification), so laborer apprentices are proper where journeymen are laborers | Court held § 1777.5 ties apprentices to the craft/trade of the journeymen (occupation/union classification), not narrowly to approved work‑process lists; affirmed summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether DAS‑approved work‑process lists limit the work apprentices may perform on public works | Appellants: approved work‑process outlines are binding limits on assigned apprentice tasks | Respondent: approved standards set minimum training content; employers may provide additional on‑the‑job training consistent with CBAs | Court held apprenticeship standards set a floor, not a ceiling; extra training does not violate the Shelley‑Maloney scheme |
| Whether CAC’s later resolution endorses plaintiffs’ interpretation and is entitled to deference | Appellants: CAC resolution confirms apprentices must be assigned only to work in their approved standards | Overaa: CAC resolution addressed a different problem (assigning apprentices tasks outside their programs after selection) and arose during litigation; limited persuasive value | Court gave the CAC resolution little deference because it addressed a distinct issue and was of limited persuasive force |
| Whether appellants should have sought administrative remedies instead of civil suit | Appellants pursued UCL class action alleging statutory violation | Overaa: craft/classification determinations and apprenticeship standard compliance are appropriate for administrative review by DIR/DAS/CAC; exhaustion applies for some challenges | Court noted administrative remedies (DIR/DAS/CAC) existed and could address classification or standards complaints; but disposed of case on statutory interpretation grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (describing Prevailing Wage Law purposes)
- Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Com. v. MacDonald, 949 F.2d 270 (9th Cir.) (apprenticeship wage rationale and need for lower apprentice wages)
- Southern Cal. Chapter, Associated Builders v. California Apprenticeship Council, 4 Cal.4th 422 (interpretation of apprenticeship approval incentives)
- Sheet Metal Workers Intl. Assn., Local 104 v. Rea, 153 Cal.App.4th 1071 (craft/classification integral to prevailing rate determinations)
- Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. San Diego Unified School Dist., 195 Cal.App.4th 748 (Shelley‑Maloney Act sets minimum apprenticeship standards)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (standard for deference to administrative interpretations)