Utility Service Co. v. Department of Labor & Industrial Relations
2011 Mo. LEXIS 51
| Mo. | 2011Background
- Missouri's Prevailing Wage Act applies to public works, with maintenance work excluded from coverage.
- Dispute centers on whether contracted water-tank work is maintenance or construction.
- Contractor argues maintenance because work maintains existing tank/tower without changing size/type/extent.
- Department argues the work is construction, triggering prevailing wages; contract includes painting, welding, and major repairs.
- Trial court ruled for Contractor; Department appeals.
- Court holds contracted work falls under construction as defined in §290.210(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contracted work on the water tank is construction under §290.210(1). | Contractor: maintenance work; exempt. | Department: construction; requires prevailing wages. | Yes; the work is construction. |
| Whether 8 CSR 30-3.020 alignment affects the construction/maintenance analysis. | Regulation creates ambiguity and should support maintenance. | Regulation reflects Department policy to fill gaps. | Regulation supports treating the work as construction. |
| Role of 'maintenance work' definition §290.210(4) in this case. | Maintenance narrowly construed, excludes major repairs. | Maintenance test cannot narrow construction; broad interpretation applied. | Maintenance test does not control; construction applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Utilities, Unknown reporting (Mo.App.1995) (Mo.App.1995) (held that 'maintenance' excludes major changes and does not rely on magnitude test)
- Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Davis, 488 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. banc 1972) (agency interpretation given deference in statutory construction)
- ITТ Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standards and de novo review on appeal)
- State ex rel. LeFevre v. Stubbs, 642 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. banc 1982) (remedial statutes construed in favor of coverage when ambiguous)
- United Pharmacopoeia of Mo., Inc. v. Mo. Bd. of Pharm., 208 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. banc 2006) (statutory interpretation guiding plain meaning analysis)