Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc., 492 P.3d 993

Plaintiffs were union operating engineers who ran heavy milling machines on public road-construction projects; when machines were stored offsite they performed "mobilization" (loading, securing, transporting, prepping, returning equipment).
A collective agreement paid prevailing wages for onsite work but a separate memorandum paid a lower rate for mobilization; plaintiffs sued claiming mobilization on public projects required the prevailing wage.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Ninth Circuit certified the question whether transporting equipment to/from a public works site is work "in the execution of [a] contract for public work" under Lab. Code § 1772.
Section 1720 et seq. specifically defines what constitutes "public work"; § 1771 ties prevailing-wage obligations to that defined work; § 1772 states workers "employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract for public work are deemed to be employed upon public work."
The California Supreme Court held § 1772 does not expand the statutory categories of "public work" beyond the definitions in article 1 (§§ 1720–1720.9); thus § 1772 alone cannot make mobilization subject to prevailing-wage rules unless mobilization independently qualifies as defined public work.
The Court limited its holding to the certified question and did not decide whether other statutory theories could require prevailing wages for mobilization.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether offsite mobilization (transporting/prepping heavy equipment) is covered by § 1772 as work "in the execution of" a public-works contract	§ 1772 "deems" workers performing any activity necessary to carry out a public-works contract to be employed on public work, so mobilization is covered	Prevailing wage coverage is limited to activities that fit the statute’s defined categories of "public works" (§ 1720 et seq.); § 1772 only identifies which workers are covered, not new categories of work	§ 1772 does not expand the statutory definitions of public work; it does not by itself render mobilization subject to prevailing wages
Whether prior judicial/administrative "integrated into the flow of construction" test (Sansone/Williams/Sheet Metal) properly expands § 1772 coverage	That test reasonably captures activities critically related/integrated into project execution and thus rightly extends § 1772 coverage to such tasks	The test imports principles from federal law and improperly overrides the Legislature’s careful definitions in article 1; it produces uncertainty and expands coverage beyond statutory text	The Court disapproved the extension of § 1772 by the Sansone/Williams/Sheet Metal framework to expand categories of public work; those decisions are not persuasive for expanding § 1772’s scope

Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Servs., 11 Cal.5th 158 (clarifies relationship between state and federal prevailing-wage schemes and statutory scope)
Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (explains prevailing-wage law purpose and that wage obligation is statutory, independent of contract)
City of Long Beach v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 34 Cal.4th 942 (courts liberally construe prevailing-wage protections to effectuate legislative purpose)
Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal.3d 56 (interpreted § 1771; Court here overruled parts inconsistent with historical reading)
O.G. Sansone Co. v. Dept. of Transportation, 55 Cal.App.3d 434 (earlier Court of Appeal decision applying an "integrated flow" test; disapproved insofar as it expands § 1772)
Williams v. SnSands Corp., 156 Cal.App.4th 742 (applied "integrated" test to deny coverage for offsite hauling; disapproved where used to expand § 1772)
Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Assn. v. Duncan, 229 Cal.App.4th 192 (applied integrated/flow analysis to offsite fabrication; disapproved as expansion of § 1772)
Allied Concrete & Supply Co. v. Baker, 904 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. discussion of integration concept under federal Davis-Bacon context relied on for analogy in lower courts)