Robbins Sound, Inc. v. Ohio UniversityRobbins Sound, Inc. v. Ohio University
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rendered by the Ohio Court of Claims which dismissed its complaint for damages against defendant-third-party plaintiff Ohio University. Plaintiff sought to recover from Ohio University money plaintiff was required to pay its employees under the Ohio Prevailing Wage Law for work performed on a project at Ohio University.
Ohio University, in March 1984, advertised for proposals for an integrated telecommunications system at its Athens, Ohio campus. Prospective bidders on the project received documents from Ohio University which included a prevailing wage determination packet prepared by the Ohio Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR"), dated March 26, 1984. This packet of prevailing wage determinations for Athens County, Ohio, contained no wage classification for the category "
Although work began in July 1985, the formal agreement was not executed between Ohio University and Honeywell until August 1985. That agreement
Plaintiff, Robbins Sound, Inc., d.b.a., Robbins Communications, Inc. ("Robbins"), a Pennsylvania corporation, was retained by Honeywell to perform certain cable installation services on the project, which Robbins commenced in July 1985. At the time Robbins entered into its agreement with Honeywell, it was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers ("AFL-CIO"), and based its pricing to Honeywell on labor costs associated with thе wage and benefit provisions of the labor agreement. For all relevant periods of time, Robbins paid its employees for work performed on the project at the wage rate specified in the collective bargaining agreement.
Although required by statute to provide monthly certified payroll report forms to Ohio University for all employees working on the project, Honeywell first provided such documents to Ohio University in December 1985, following several oral and written requests by the University. These reports listed Robbins' employees as telephone installers. When the DIR received several complaints from various employees in January 1986 regarding the wage being paid by plaintiff, it undertook an investigation of the rate paid by Robbins to its employees. The DIR notified Ohio University in late January 1986 that it had initiated an investigation under the prevailing wage law to determine whether Robbins was complying with that law. Ultimately, the DIR concluded that the proper classification for Robbins' employees, with one exception, was "telephone installer."
Further investigation by Ohio University revealed that it had not obtained a prevailing wage determination from the DIR for telephone installers and that no prevailing-wage determination packet provided to Honeywell in conjunction with the project contained such classification.
A telephone installer classification for Athens County had been in effect since January 1985, but was not included by the DIR in its prevailing wage packet for the Ohio University project. On February 18, 1986, the DIR provided Ohio University with its first prevailing wage rate for telephone installers. Ohio University then provided this information to Robbins on February 26, 1986. A subsequent change in the prevailing wage rate determination for telephone installers was made by the DIR in March 1986, which change was provided to both Robbins and Honeywell. Based upon the investigation undertaken by the DIR, it was determined that Robbins had underpaid its employees a total of $171,043.26
Ohio University, on April 12, 1986, ordered that work cease on the project for the reason that Robbins had failed to pay its employees the prevailing wage rate for telephone installers. As a result of this work stoppage, representatives of Honeywell, Robbins, the DIR, and Ohio University met in Columbus. At this meeting, the Ohio Attorney Gеneral and the DIR represented that they would immediately issue a stop work order on the project, without prior notice or hearing, unless Honeywell and Robbins agreed to pay their employees on the project the prevailing wage rate for telephone installers. This threat was underscored by the representation of Ohio University that it would enforce a $2,000 per day penalty provision in the agreement for delays. As a result of this meeting, Robbins and Honeywell executed a settlement agreement with the DIR on July 30, 1986. Pursuant to that agreement, Robbins agreed to pay its employees the sum of $180,000 in settlement of all claims.
Plaintiff then commenced this action in the Ohio Court of Claims on June 30, 1987. Robbins sought recovery from Ohio University damages which were allegedly incurred as a result of the failure of Ohio University to provide Robbins with the prevailing wage rate determination for telephone installers as required by R.C. Chapter 4115, the Ohio Prevailing Wage Law. Specifically, Robbins allegеd that Ohio University failed to comply with its statutory duty to obtain from the DIR the prevailing wage rate determinations for all employees working on the project and its duty to provide such determinations to all employers performing such work. Robbins also alleged claims for contribution and indemnification arising from its payment of the $180,000 settlement. Ohio University answered and filed a third-party complaint in August 1987 against Honeywell, setting forth claims for breach of contract, contribution and indemnification.
Follоwing a joint stipulation of facts, the parties submitted trial briefs to the Court of Claims for determination on the merits. In a sixteen-page decision, rendered May 19, 1989, the Court of Claims dismissed plaintiffs complaint in its entirety. Finding that the third-party complaint of Ohio University against Honeywell was moot, that action was dismissed as well. In essence, the Court of Claims concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of plaintiffs complaint and that plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under R.C. Chapter 4115.
Plaintiff now appeals and sets forth the following assignments of error:
"2. Whether the Court of Claims erred in concluding that no right of action existed in a subcontractor such as Robbins under the Prevailing Wage Law allowing for recovery?
"3. Whether the Court of Claims erred in concluding that no 'change' had occurred in the wage rаte specified for the Project within the meaning of
"4. Whether the Court of Claims erred in failing to conclude that the Ohio Constitution was violated if Robbins was denied a remedy against Ohio University.
"5. Whether the Court of Claims erred in finding as a matter of fact that Robbins had, at all times relevant to this action, received the prevailing wage packet containing wage rates other than those for 'telephone installers'?
"6. The Court of Claims erred in failing to conclude that Robbins' claims for indemnity or contributiоn were valid."
Although plaintiff sets forth six assignments of error, the first four assigned errors raise but two issues. Specifically, plaintiff contends by way of these assignments of error that the claims court erroneously concluded plaintiffs complaint failed to state a cause of action under R.C. Chapter 4115 and that the Court of Claims erroneously determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It' is plaintiffs position that Ohio University violated several statutory duties, which duties it could not delegate to plaintiff. Absent enforcement of such duties by suit in the Court of Claims, Robbins contends that Ohio University will escape liability for failing to perform such duties. Robbins maintains that
In addressing plaintiffs contentions, this court begins by noting that "*** the primary purpose of the prevailing wage law is to support the integrity of the collective bargaining process by preventing the undercutting
Pertinent to this appeal,
"Every public authority authorized to contract for or construct with its own forces a public improvement, before advertising for bids or undertaking such construction with its own forces, shall have the department of industrial relations determine the prevailing rates of wages of mechanics and laborers in accordance with
"The prevailing rate of wages to be paid for a legal day's work, as prescribed in
"Every contract for a public work shall contain a provision that each laborer, workman, or mechanic, employed by such contractor, subcontractor, or other person about or upon such public work, shall be paid the prevailing ratе of wages provided in this section.
"Where contracts are not awarded or construction undertaken within ninety days from the date of the establishment of the prevailing rate of wages, there shall be a redetermination of the prevailing rate of wages before the contract is awarded. Upon receipt from the director of industrial relations of a notice of a change in prevailing rates, a public authority shall, within seven working days after receipt thereof, nоtify all affected contractors and subcontractors
"If the director of industrial relations determines that a contractor or subcontractor has violated sections 4115.03 to 4115.16 of the Revised Code because the public authority has not notified the contractor or subcontractor as required by this section, the public authority is liable for any back wages, fines, damages, court costs, and attorney fees associated with the enforcement of said sections by the director for the period of time running until the public authority gives the required notice to the contractor or subcontractor."
"In all cases where any public authority fixes a prevailing rate of wages under
Finally,
"No public official, authorized to contract for or construct with his own forces a public improvement, shall fail, before advertising for bids or undertaking such construction with his оwn forces, to have the department of industrial relations determine the prevailing rates of wages of mechanics and laborers for the class of work called for by the public improvement in the locality where the work is to be performed, as provided in
Upon review of the above-referenced sections of the Revised Code, it is clear that Ohio's Prevailing Wage Law imposes upon public authorities contractors and subcontractors a duty to ensure that аll public improvements within the purview of R.C. Chapter 4115 are constructed by employees who are paid the prevailing wage rate for the locality in which the public improvement is situated. It is also clear that the General Assembly has provided several avenues by which interested parties, as defined by
"*** [a]ll contractors and subcontractors *** shall be subject to and comply with
Additionally, as this court noted in
"*** There are three statutory provisions which provide for legal recourse to be taken against a public authority. ***
In
Davis Construction Systems, supra,
we also stated that the 1985 amendment to
In light of the foregoing, R.C. Chapter 4115 imposes certain duties and creates specific remedies to achieve the underlying purpose of ensuring that employees who perform labor on a public improvement are paid the prevailing wage rate enjoyed by similar employees working on private projects in a given locality. Davis Construction Systems makes clear that R.C. Chapter 4115 creates no private cause of action against a public authority who fails to comply with its statutory duties, except as specifically provided under Ohio's Prevailing Wage Law.
Contrary to plaintiffs assertions on appeal, the mere absence of a remedy in favor of a subcontractor by way of a civil suit in the Court of Claims does not render unenforceable the various duties imposed by R.C. Chapter 4115. Rather, such duties may be enforced by a variety of methods.
Upon review of the foregoing sections, Robbins is not without a remedy for any of the alleged violations occasioned by the failure of Ohio University to comply with
In addition to the enforcement remedies provided by R.C. Chapter 4115,
There is simply no evidence in the record before this court to support plaintiffs contention that the prevailing wage rate for telephone installers changed prior to February 1, 1986 so as to provide relief pursuant to
Finally, the claims court correctly concluded that it was without jurisdiction to entertain any suit brought pursuant to
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs first four assignments of error are overruled.
Under its fifth assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the Court of Claims erred in finding the plaintiff had received all prevailing wage packets provided by Ohio University for the relevant time periods. It is Robbins' position that this fact was not stipulated and there is no evidence to support such a finding since Robbins had no contract with Ohio University.
The fifth assignment of error is overruled.
Under its final assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the Court of Claims erred in failing to uphold the validity of its claims for indemnity and/or contribution. Plaintiff contends that, because Ohio University is primarily liable for payment of back wages occasioned by its negligence, plaintiff may seek contribution or indemnity from Ohio University premised upon its discharge of the university’s obligation by payment of the $180,000 settlement.
Plaintiff does not specify any section of the Revised Code, other than
Neither is this court able to ascertain any contract between Ohio University and plaintiff which would support its claim for indemnification. Any error in failing to rule upon plaintiffs claims for contribution and indemnity was nonprejudicial under the facts of this case.
The sixth assignment of error is overruled.
Having overruled all assignments of error, the judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.