State Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista

S173586. July [No. 2012.]

STATE BUILDING COUNCIL AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES OF AFL-CIO, CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, al., OF CITY VISTA et Defendants and Respondents.

Counsel Berzon, Berzon, Altshuler P. Scott A. Kronland and Peter E. Leckman Stephen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Brown, Jr., Harris, General,

Edmund G. and Kamala D. James M. Attorneys Humes, General, Bums, Chief Gordon B. State Attorney Deputy Deputy General, Renner, Solicitor E. Jonathan K. Krueger.and Assistant Christopher General, Williams, J. Attorneys Douglas Woods Peter M. Deputy General, Attorneys as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Davis, Bowe, Davis, Jr., Cowell & John J. and Andrew J. Kahn for Northern Association, California Mechanical Contractors Los Angeles Chapter Association, National Electrical Contractors Air Conditioning, Refrigeration California, and Mechanical Contractors Association of Southern California Association, and Mechanical Plumbing Contractors California Sheet Metal Air Association, Contractors National Conditioning Associated Plumbing Mechanical Contractors Association and Mechanical Contractors Council of Central California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Carroll & Donald C. Carroll and Charles P. H Scully, Scully Southern California Labor Contract Management Engineers Operating Committee as Compliance Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Lawrence H. and Lawrence H. for Construction Kay Kay Association as Employers’ Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Rosenfeld, Benson, Gates, & Weinberg, Roger Sandra Rae Patricia M. Roberta D. and Alliance, Perkins Sharon Seidenstein for Northern California Basic Crafts Association, California Coordinators Jeff Apprenticeship Armstrong, Tammy Castillo, Love, Sumaria John Bullock and Mavis McAllister as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Stone,

Darold D. Jonathan Pieper, City Attorney, B. Deputy City Attorney; Love, Eckis, Smith, McDougal, Boehmer & Foley, Lounsbery, Ferguson Peak, Stotland; Altona & James P. Lough, David M. Richards Watson & Gershon and T. Peter Pierce for Defendants Respondents.

Atkinson, Andelson, Romo, Fried, Ruud & Loya, Robert Elizabeth P. Lind and W. Chastain for Associated & Bryce Builders Contractors of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Patrick Whitnell and Burdick for of California Cities as Kourtney League Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Opinion KENNARD, J. into entered certain contracts for the con- city A struction of A federation of labor unions then public buildings. petitioned mandate, court for a writ of must asserting superior peremptory city with California’s law local ordi- notwithstanding comply nances The certain stating otherwise. law that requires minimum levels be contract workers works. paid constructing public Constitution, Under the state the ordinances charter cities supersede Const., XI, (Cal. 5), state law with affairs” art. but respect “municipal law is concern” (California with to matters “statewide supreme respect Fed. & Assn. v. Savings City Angeles Loan Los Here, P.2d Fed. Savings)). (California petitioner 916] contends matter of state’s law is subject “statewide concern” over which the state has primary legislative authority. (Ibid.) The that the matter is a affair and therefore city responds its with local ordinances. We governed agree city.

I. Facts 2006, the in San a 0.5 Diego County approved In voters of Vista sales tax to fund the construction renovation several public percent The the seismic retrofit of an fire existing involved buildings. proposed projects stations, center, a new and the of two new fire a new civic station construction At and a for the stagehouse city’s Moonlight Amphitheatre. new sports park, time, Vista In the Vista City was a general city.1 February that Vista take recommending submitted a council Attorney report would to become a charter asserted that conversion city. steps report of not on its planned public give paying prevailing option few of dollars of over the next savings works millions projects, “resulting] years beyond.” a for residents of Vista then authorized election special Council vote that would Vista from a change general

the on a ballot measure city the “City into a In the voter information city. pamphlet, law city “1 (cities “general organized either law cities” ‘The Code classifies cities as Government (cities charter). California) organized or cities” under a general “chartered under law of city comply specify must with state statutes that general ... . . . [A] [Citations.] ” County (City Orange Diego San entering into contracts. requirements [Citations.]’ 405].) Employees Retirement Assn. Cal.Rptr.2d Cal.App.4th that, as a charter Vista’s city, city told voters

Attorney Impartial Analysis” to the affairs council the state with “replaces legislature regard . . . .” (City . . . include and City[, bidding contracting procedures which] Elec., of Vista Ballot & Voter Information Pamp., Special Municipal Sample 5, 2007, C, June That same was made in analysis Prop. point and members ballot in favor of the argument signed by mayor proposal, council, the city which also noted that the conversion would allow city ” (Id., in favor of to “choose when and if it pays wages.’ argument ‘prevailing C, 004.) There was no ballot argument. Prop. opposing The ballot measure with of the votes cast. passed approximately percent thereafter, Vista amended a ordinance to Shortly city prohibit any city (a) from contract unless such requiring payment prevailing wages payment (b) the contract does terms of state or federal compelled by grant, affair, (c) not involve a payment authorized council. separately

In October Vista’s council resolution adopted approving contracts to and build fire and design two stations authorizing mayor execute the contracts. The contracts did with the not require compliance state’s law. A court action followed. prevailing wage by plaintiff California,

Plaintiff State and Construction Trades Council of Building unions, (the AFL-CIO Union), is a labor federation of 131 local composed councils, district labor local trades councils that building collectively 300,000 more than men and women in the construction represent working in California. The Union the San industry Diego County Superior petitioned Court for a officeholders to writ mandate to direct Vista its peremptory with the countered that state’s law. Vista comply prevailing wage concern, issues are not a and that “charter cities have the statewide to determine whether or not to local legal right wages’ require ‘prevailing funded, under works contracts that involve affairs’ locally ‘municipal the California Constitution and the laws charter cities.” The Union governing moved for issuance of a writ of mandate. The Union argued peremptory concerns” and there- law “addresses statewide important fore it to charter cities as it to other cities.” In “just applies applies support its the Union submitted a declaration of its Robert L. petition, president, nature of the construction Balgenorth, asserting regional industry motion, in that Vista describing apprenticeship training industry. opposed a matter fiscal control over local of law “Charter Cities have arguing determine affairs’ and these Cities can whether to include ‘municipal ‘prevail- in local works contracts.” ing wage’ requirements The trial court denied the Union’s Vial v. San citing Diego petition, (1981) Vial concerned a council city Cal.App.3d 647]. (a charter that barred resolution San adopted by Diego city) payment circumstances. The state prevailing wages except specified sought (Id. law. wage with the state’s compel city comply prevailing resolution, 347.) The Court that stating Vial p. Appeal upheld city’s funds on works and the rates of pay expenditure public projects workers hired for such are affairs of a charter over projects (Id. 348.) which state has no legislative authority. decision, In the Court of

The Union here a two-to-one appealed. Appeal affirmed After that both the record and the trial court. observing legislative trial court record were establish inadequate application law to charter cities is labor necessary protect regional prevailing markets, the Court of concluded that the Union had failed to Appeal prove view, however, In the the wage existence of statewide concern. dissent’s can have a levels of contract workers works constructing public depressive effect on and therefore are statewide concern. regional wages, they the state’s We the Union’s for review to decide whether granted petition to charter cities. wage law prevailing applies

II. Discussion

A. Law Prevailing Wage California’s 1931, In the California enacted the state’s prevailing Act,” law, the “Public Rate Wage required law.2 That which was then entitled rate of “the general contractors on works” projects pay prevailing “public in which the locality diem for work of a similar character in wages per 397, 1, (Stats. ch. The term “public work is performed.” § for with work done for and work agencies paid works” was defined as public (Id., 4, 911—912.)The referred to funds. law expressly § in contracts such cities to cities in a provision requiring pay (Ibid.) or sewer work. for street improvement (Pub.L. the Davis-Bacon Act

Earlier the same had enacted Congress year, U.S.C. 1931) Stat. codified (Mar. No. 71-798 century required payment a law from the late 19th replaced (Stats. ch. day $2 for labor on works. per of at least

555 similar. the federal and the state were 3141-3148); legislation goals §§ Dillingham Labor (See, Div. Standards e.g., Enforcement California 791, Constr., A., 316, 117 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1997) Inc. 519 U.S. 319 N. [136 . . are on the . 832].) laws based wage premise Simply put, “[prevailing to locally prevail- not be allowed circumvent contractors should government areas.” labor from other by cheap labor market conditions ing importing Industrial Relations Roofing Department Contractors v. (Independent 345, have 550].) states (1994) 356 Cal.Rptr.2d Many 23 Cal.App.4th [28 for construction form a law wage projects. some adopted prevailing 130/12; 220.3(a); 43 Labor Law (See, HI. Stat. 130/1 to N.Y. e.g., 820 Comp. § 165-17; to Tex. Gov. Code Ann. 2258.001 Pa. Cons. Stat. 165-1 to §§ §§ 2258.058.) 1937, established the Labor Code in

When California revised, but substantively it Rate Act with a replaced Wage 1931 Public 90, 1937, (Stats. ch. et seq., version of the same law. unchanged, § law, law, 241-246.) awarding like directed the “body the 1931 in contract” to “ascertain the rate of diem any general per needed execute the ... each craft of workman to locality type 2, 90, 243; 1931, 397, (Stats. ch. see Stats. ch. contract.” § § amendment, now a result law As that local be Director California’s by rates determined requires than the body awarding of Industrial Relations rather Department 281, 2, (Stats. 587), but law’s contract ch. the prevailing and remain general purpose largely unchanged. scope Here, that it need with the Vista contends not comply because the law Vista’s constitutionally guaranteed autonomy invades issue, In begin we with brief overview city. resolving home in the rule doctrine set forth California Constitution.

B. Rule Home Doctrine California’s to

Charter cities are authorized our Constitution specifically themselves, intrusion, as to matters free of state those govern legislative XI, (a) of the deemed affairs. Article section subdivision charter to California Constitution “It shall be provides: competent and all ordi may that the thereunder make enforce provide governed to nances regulations respect municipal affairs, only and subject their charters and in restrictions and limitations several provided respect other subject adopted matters shall be laws. charters they general charter, shall and with any existing to this Constitution pursuant supersede shall all laws inconsistent therewith.” respect municipal supersede affairs (Italics added.) this trace more than 100 years. The roots of back provision (See Johnson v. generally Bradley Cal.4th 394-398 990].) P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d It was “enacted originally upon principle itself knew better what it wanted needed municipality than the state at large, give the exclusive municipality right privilege to enact direct which would out legislation carry and its wants satisfy and (1899) needs.” v. Phelan (Fragley (lead 126 Cal. P. of opn. [58 923] Garoutte, J.).) The an “affirmative constitutional provision represents grant to charter cities of ‘all for to . . .’ and powers appropriate municipality possess the that ‘so far as corollary affairs” are important “municipal [includes] concerned,’ charter cities are of beyond the reach ‘supreme legislative ” enactment.’ Fed. (California Cal.3d at Savings, p. quoting (1903) Ex Parte Braun 780].) Cal. P.

In Fed. an Savings, supra, 54 we set forth analytical California framework for whether or a matter the resolving not falls within home rule First, of cities. authority charter a court must determine whether the city ordinance at issue regulates activity an be characterized as a can (Id. Second, at the 16.) affair.” court itself “municipal p. satisfy “must that the Third, (Ibid.) case an actual conflict presents between state [local law].” court the must decide whether the state law addresses a matter “statewide (Id. determine concern.” the court must Finally, whether law is related . . . that concern “reasonably (ibid.) resolution” of “narrowly (id. in 24). tailored” avoid interference local unnecessary governance ... “If the court is that the of the statute is subject state one of persuaded statewide concern and that the statute to its related resolution reasonably not in its broad then charter measure unduly sweep], conflicting [and ceases be a affair’ tanto and the ‘municipal Legislature not pro XI, 5(a), article section by from the statewide dimen- prohibited addressing its (Id. sion own tailored enactments.”

Here, our (see we reaffirm view—first expressed ago years Pasadena v. Charleville 215 Cal. P.2d 389 [10 745] (Charleville))—that levels of contract workers constructing locally is, (that funded are a affair from works exempt is, (that not a concern and that these levels are statewide regulation), control). in subject to state Our reasons are set forth the course of legislative analysis given below. Question C. Rule Is a Home Doctrine Applicability of California’s Law one, The Court of treated the this case as a factual and it Appeal dispute characterized its decision the Union terms of a failure For against proof. the court observed: we face is whether either the example, question “[T]he justification a fact-bound demonstrated Legislature ha[s] [Union] As more cities. we explain application [prevailing law] Later on the record any presented.” we do not find such fully, justification has articulated not its the Court said: opinion, Appeal “[T]he that complete would conclusion preemption rationale which support labor is needed to contracting regional works protect municipal public Union, the court made by record regard evidentiary markets.” With court establish said: . . . trial “Plainly parts record] [various rather local. . . . labor trades are than regional markets in construction [However,] no evidence the factual record offers presented [Union] activity materially impacts which suggests contracting municipalities markets.” regional labor

Thus, did that the levels of the Court of here not hold Appeal are a a funded work locally categorically contract workers constructing Rather, the of and not a statewide concern. Court Appeal affair municipal held was to establish a statewide that the record legislative inadequate the failed to its case in trial court. concern and Union had prove whether the determina- Court of raises the Appeal’s approach question tion of a or a factual legal a statewide concern presents predominantly the is one of constitutional Fundamentally, interpretation; question. question the state allocates governmental how Constitution controlling inquiry constitu- between charter cities and the state. The answer to that authority tional not activity does on whether necessarily depend municipal question have said regional has some or statewide effect. For we question example, and not a that salaries of charter are a affair municipal employees salaries statewide concern of economic effect those regardless any possible County have might beyond city. Organization borders {Sonoma of 296, (1979) Public v. Sonoma 23 Cal.3d 316-317 County Employees [152 of 903, P.2d Cal.Rptr. County).) 591 1] {Sonoma course, historical, and is not removed from Of inquiry wholly factual, 54 hence realities. Fed. Cal.3d at Savings, supra, pages In California 18, 17 to we avoid error of ‘compart for said: should example, “[C]ourts mentalization,’ is, area that off an entire cordoning governmental a affair’ or one concern. activity Beginning as either of statewide ‘municipal Tel. S. F. County with the observation in Pac. Tel. & Co. v. [766,] [(1959)] 514], concept P.2d that ‘the constitutional 111 [336 . . changes is not a or static . one quantity municipal that] \but of with the affairs fixed a it our cases display conditions which is to changing upon operate,’ that rule’ is means of adjusting political ‘home growing recognition in discrete areas of conflict. governments between state and local relationship of a conflicting charter in favor When a court invalidates a measure 558

statute, the result does not rest on the necessarily conclusion that the subject means, matter former is not It appropriate regulation. rather, that under the historical circumstances the state has a more presented, (Italics substantial interest in the than the added.) subject city.” Nevertheless, whether in a case the home rule question particular of the California Constitution bar the provisions state law to application charter cities turns on the state law in ultimately meaning scope and the relevant state constitutional question provisions. Interpreting and those one. provisions legal not a factual presents question, (County of 278, (2003) Riverside v. Superior Court Cal.4th 286-287 Cal.Rptr.2d [132 P.3d Riverside)', {County County, Sonoma 23 Cal.3d at 718] 316; (1969) Jose Bishop City San Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [81 460 P.2d accord Courts factual record {Bishop).) great weight 137] the Legislature has Fed. 54 Cal.3d at compiled Savings, supra, {California 20-25; Baggett v. Gates 136-137 P.2d 874]), relevant also facts established in trial court proceedings. Savings, Fed. fn. Factual findings by {California court, however, or the trial are not controlling. {Bishop, 63.) The decision as to what areas of are governance concerns and what are statewide concerns one. ultimately legal

Therefore, the here Court of too much to the gave weight Union’s Appeal case, failure to asserted its that the issue before the court was prove implying one of The whether the sufficiency evidence. answer to prevailing law can be to charter is not wage constitutionally cities applied conclusively determined the record in the trial court or the solely by evidentiary by record. The remains one of state constitutional legislative question interpreta- Riverside, 286-287; 30 Cal.4th {County tion. at Sonoma supra, County, of 316; 23 Cal.3d at 63.) 1 Cal.3d supra, Bishop, supra, at p. D. California Fed. Test Application Savings’s Four-part of We now the test of this decision in apply court’s four-part California at Savings, Fed. 16 to we summarized at supra, pages which 556, ante. page

1. contract constructing locally Whether the workers works are a municipal funded affair funded wage The levels of contract workers constructing locally are works a affair.” We said so in our certainly “municipal explicitly Charleville, in 215 Cal. at was the case decision which test supra, page we after the enactment of the immediately Legislature’s took to charter cities. Charleville was law to decide whether that law applied to a a charter city’s manager sign

a mandate action brought compel (Id. around reservoir. for the construction of a fence a city-owned contract contract, contending (among The city sign refused manager enacted newly did not with the state’s other contract things) comply law. for a of mandate asserted that (Ibid.) The writ petition cities, court and this agreed. did not apply a there held that the levels of contract workers improving We issue was, law, (Charleville, a affair.” reservoir as a matter of city-owned “municipal “The sole of the contract 215 Cal. We said: supra, purpose a wire a is a of the city’s construction of fence around reservoir which part water The of water a to its inhabitants is system. by city municipal supplying affair. to be used for building a The a dam municipal impound- [Citation.] for a is a affair. The system water water ing municipal municipal [Citation.] of a as a of a water is a system construction reservoir part municipal be affair. for cost of money municipal expended [Citation.] and the a belongs to the control of its city expenditure improvement by affair. The hiring employees generally city municipal [Citation.] affairs labor services in connection with its perform municipal its city’s by funds for services rendered to the payment employees the administration of affairs is to or its not controlled municipal subject (Ibid.) laws. general [Citations.]” Charleville,

It is from our 215 Cal. analysis page apparent supra, that the construction of a for the benefit city-operated facility city’s affair, inhabitants is is the control over the quintessential^ Here, in the city’s own two fire stations expenditure funds. Vista, Charleville, like the 215 Cal. are system water inhabitants, the benefit of they facilities operated city’s funds. We therefore that the matter are financed from own conclude city’s here involves a affair.” at issue “municipal

2. an “actual state law and Existence between conflict” of charter city law This court’s decision in Fed. Savings, supra, California 16-17, a of as importance determining, pages emphasized construction, of that state law conflicts with local statutory actually matter which law before to the difficult state constitutional question proceeding Here, contends Califor law matter. no governs particular party Indeed, charter its wage nia’s law cities from exempts scope. cities, law makes reference to charter wage defining express “ ” sewer, “[s]treet, . . . works’ to include or other work improvement ‘public state], subdivision any political or district whether the political [of subdivision or district under a operates (Lab. charter or not.” freeholder’s Code, 1720, added; (a)(3), id., subd. italics see (a)(1) also subd. [applying the law to construction work “done under contract and for . . . out of paid funds”].) Because the state’s law does not exempt cities, and because Vista’s ordinance prohibits with that compliance (except here), circumstances not relevant we conclude that an actual conflict exists between state law and Vista’s ordinance.

3. Whether levels contract workers constructing locally public works is statewide concern funded When, here, as state law and the ordinances of a charter city actually controls, conflict and we must decide which “the hinge decision is identification of a basis for convincing legislative action originating concerns, one extramunicipal justifying based on legislative supersession sensible, considerations.” Fed. pragmatic (California Savings, supra, words, Cal.3d at 18.) In other for state law to control there be must interest, more than an something abstract state it always possible Rather, articulate some state interest in even the most local of matters. there must be “a basis” for the state’s convincing action—a basis that “justifies]” the state’s interference in what would otherwise be a local affair. merely Here, (Ibid.) is not convincing justification present.

We reached essentially same conclusion when we addressed the Charleville, in our decision in question 215 Cal. 384. We there supra, held that the levels of contract workers improving city-owned reservoir were not a matter of (Id. state concern.” “general Likewise, the levels of contract workers two designing constructing do not firehouses to be a matter of city-operated appear “general Union, however, concern.” The that circumstances have argues changed since decision, our Charleville and that what was not a statewide concern then has since become a statewide concern. The Union a statement quotes F, this court in Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. & S. City County 766, at 771: constitutional affairs is not a page concept municipal “[T]he fixed or static It with the changes conditions which it quantity. changing upon to What at one time have been a matter of local concern operate. may may at a later time become a matter state concern controlled general (Italics added.) laws the state.”

The Union out that as a result of a 1976 amendment to the state’s points (Stats. 587), law ch. wage levels prevailing wage § mandated are no set local longer by body awarding Relations, and of Industrial the Director of Department

contract but rather law, levels reflect regional these mandatory wage under the amended 1773.1, 1770, 1773, 1773.9). In Code, (Lab. than local interests §§ simply contract levels of the Union argues, wage changes, of these light statutory a matter of have become funded works workers constructing locally public concern. statewide the state has that the economy the Union contends argument,

In a related court’s decision the 80 since this during years become more integrated Charleville, are now levels in a local area 215 Cal. and wage in The construction and statewide. regionally more to have an effect likely Union, followed this trend toward to the has industry according particular, to a distances driving long with workers often economic regionalization, governing collective bargaining agreements jobsite multiemployer these economic basis. Because of terms of on regional employment asserts, cities to the Union the refusal of charter pay prevailing changes, labor that was not has a on standards regional depressive impact Therefore, the Union argues, when Charleville was decided. present work is no longer purely funds on a local expenditure public concern; rather, it has integrated economy, local of our modem light become a statewide concern.

The Union further notes that the state’s law now wage requires prevailing from contractors on works to hire projects apprentices state-approved next of the ensuring training programs, thereby proper apprenticeship Code, 1777.5.) (Lab. The Union of skilled construction workers. generation law is essential contends this requirement prevailing law did not California’s economic health. If the long-term contractors include the Union then construction argues, this requirement, refuse to hire works would bidding appren- competitively projects tices, costs; then not be able to obtain might in an effort to reduce apprentices their on-the-job training work to themselves enough complete support of the next training generation The Union asserts requirement. concern, not a local merely construction workers is a statewide skilled concern, become an integral part and the law has workers. state’s scheme for these training of identifying the Union underscore the importance

These arguments by labor standards and the at issue. Certainly regional correctly question are concerns when consid of construction workers statewide training proper the state here is not whether ered in the abstract. But question presented conditions and vocational an abstract interest in labor has government Rather, the state can is whether require training. question presented in a in the construction market to exercise its purchasing power way supports regional wages subsidizes vocational while training, the charter increasing costs. No one would city’s doubt that the state could use its own resources to and vocational support wages in the state’s training construction but can the industry, state achieve these ends by interfering the fiscal of charter cities? with policies to the Autonomy regard expenditure funds lies at the heart of what it means to be an independent “ governmental can entity. think that is of nothing greater municipal ‘[W]e concern than how a tax city’s dollars will be nor which could spent; anything ” be of less interest to of other (Johnson v. taxpayers jurisdictions.’ Bradley, Therefore, 407.) Cal.4th at supra, Union here cannot p. state justify regulation of charter cities spending practices merely by identifying some indirect effect on the (See and state regional economies. County of Riverside, 30 Cal.4th at doubt supra, almost a anything county [“No . . does . can have beyond its borders. But this circumstance consequences does not mean this court eviscerate clear constitutional may or the provisions, do what the Legislature may Constitution it from expressly prohibits doing.”].) The Union’s also conflict with our arguments decisions. In previous Sonoma County, Cal.3d at we held that the page wages paid a charter or its own are a affair county employees municipal case, therefore are not subject the state In that regulation by Legislature. the state offered to distribute state funds to local surplus governments however, mitigate 13.3 The impact Proposition Legislature, then enacted a the distribution of state special provision prohibiting funds surplus local a granted its agency employees cost-of-living wage increase that salary exceeded the increase to state cost-of-living provided At issue was whether the latter employees. violated home rule provision (Sonoma doctrine of the 314—318.) California Constitution. at We County, pp. in Sonoma that the determination of what emphasized County constitutes (over affair which the state has no and what legislative authority) (as constitutes a statewide concern to which state law is is a controlling) courts, (Id. matter for the not the to decide. Legislature, citing Moreover, Bishop, supra, chose to deal with basis, said, on a statewide Sonoma does not in itself make problem County (Sonoma County, statewide concern. Put problem differently, of statewide concern is not coextensive with state’s concept police numerous cases and an of the state Constitu power. Citing explicit provision tion, Sonoma concluded that the salaries of local of a County employees are a affair not to the state’s laws. subject general {Id. 316-317.) 6, 1978, Proposition passed an initiative measure that the California electorate on June Constitution, significant taxing placing added article XIII A to the California limits on the governments. local and power of University v. Regents in San Francisco Labor Council Similarly, of of (S.F. 460, P.2d (1980) 26 Cal.3d 785 277] California an effort the state to Council), Legislature compel

Labor we rejected wages university of California to Regents University pay prevailing Constitution, IX, the Under article section of the California employees. charter cities under of California an like of University enjoys autonomy XI, IX, that the article section 5. article section 9 provides Specifically, have “full of organization govern- of California shall University powers ment,” the a few one of Significantly, narrow subject only exceptions. matters of statewide “regulates to state exceptions pertains legislation Council, at (S.F. concern not internal affairs.” Labor involving university 296, 789, we added.) County, italics on Sonoma 23 Cal.3d Relying supra, p. “not a matter of concluded that the state’s was requirement Council, (S.F. 790.) at We observed that “while statewide concern.” Labor p. the the statute to establish a minimum it in effect determines wage, purports (Ibid.) We then stated: has declared wage.” “Although Legislature [citation], control- matter is one of statewide concern the declaration is not ____” (Id. 790-791.) at ling pp. above, 296, As discussed Sonoma involved the County, supra, Council, counties, of charter cities and and S.F. Labor autonomy rights supra, 785, Cal.3d a state County’s Sonoma to case applied holding involving to the one at issue here. Read analogous together, Sonoma Labor our continued adherence to County S.F. Council indicate Charleville, 215 Cal. that charter cities are not holding supra, to the state’s law. subject Riverside, More we reaf- County 30 Cal.4th recently, supra,

firmed that is not a statewide concern compensation public employees governmen- law interference justifying autonomy independent tal entities. We there concluded that state law could not force a into county arbitration over the Our binding county compensation paid employees. decision two state constitutional one all counties giving applied provisions: (Cal. for the . .. ... of authority “provide compensation employees” [their] Const., XI, (b)), art. subd. the other from prohibiting § to a or to . . . interfere with “delegating] body county private person power (id., (a)). or . . . subd. In the course of money” municipal corporation our we considered whether the state law at issue be enforce- analysis, might Riverside, able matter concern. (County because it of statewide governed 286, 291.) assertion that the matter We pp. rejected Legislature’s Instead, (Id. 286-287.) involved a statewide concern. we concluded local “depriving that the state law in too much on question impinged rights, 288; (Id. salaries.” county authority of its set entirely employee see id. at We also drew an distinction between state important (which local entities governmental laws affairs of procedural governing affairs) their less on local and state laws dictating nature impinge more (which substance of a labor issue much on impinge public employee (Id. affairs). local at 23 Cal. 3d County, supra, the three cases cited—Sonoma

Although just Riverside, Council, County supra, S.F. Labor than, here, rather Cal.4th 278—deal with the wages public employees local works private employees constructing public projects, is irrelevant. The Union’s here do not arguments depend distinction are whether the workers work constructing private contends, If, law’s shift from a as the Union the prevailing wage employees. made the levels of workers wage local focus to a focus regional purely has concern, a matter of statewide then funded works constructing locally public involved or private that would be true whether case public employees asserts, if, integration as the Union the state’s economic Similarly, employees. Charleville, our decision in 215 Cal. supra, since 1932 during years 384, works a matter has made the of workers local constructing public concern, then that would be true for both public employees of statewide private employees. which a statewide this case is not like others in we found

Significantly, For of a state law to charter cities. example, concern to justify application of broad is more general application our cases have a state law suggested narrow and to address a statewide concern than one that is particular- likely Council, 789-790; (S.F. Cal.3d at ized in its Labor supra, pp. application. Charleville, 390.) this in People 215 Cal. at We supra, p. applied principle (1984) Beach 36 Cal.3d rel. Beach Police Assn. v. Seal City ex Seal Officers 794, 591, 1145], Fire Fighters, 685 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [205 Professional 276, 830, Inc. v. Los 294-295 Angeles cases, we noted that the state laws P.2d In the latter two also 158]. standards, and procedural consequently issue set forth generally applicable substantive local than if had autonomy they imposed less on impinged Beach, a clear In we said: example, Seal obligations. “[T]here and the of a labor issue employee distinction between the substance public there is no that ‘salaries which it is resolved. Thus question procedure by and are not constitute affairs local of a charter employees 317.) 23 Cal.3d at ([Sonoma County], supra, p. laws.’ subject general matter of Nevertheless, fixed is a obviously which salaries are process could, that a charter argue and none at this late stage, statewide concern Beach, at (Seal its structure.” concerning salary need not meet and confer Riverside, 600-601, 11; Cal.4th at p. fn. see County Here, broad a minimum law of wage state law at issue is not rather, a far narrower applica the law at issue here has general application; In tion, of public agencies. to the works projects as it only public pertains addition, cities, it on charter not obligations merely substantive imposes standards. These distinctions further under- generally applicable procedural mine the Union’s assertion that matter here statewide concern presents Vista, and therefore a charter with the state’s city, requires comply law on the funded works prevailing city’s locally public projects. We aware are has stated that the levels Legislature recently of contract workers funded are a matter of constructing locally works public statewide concern. The view is in two amendments to Legislature’s expressed law, 2003, one 2002 and the other in each addressing narrow relatively category works. Uncodified sections of both public amendments state: “It is a matter of statewide concern that every public agency California rate of diem pay wages workers per employed works undertaken those projects agencies.” 2003, 851, 1, 6247, added; 2002, (Stats. ch. italics Stats. ch. § § added; Likewise, italics see Stats. ch. 2003 concurrent resolution of the stated relevant part: “[T]he Legislature reaffirms its intent for the state law to apply funds, to all broadly subsidized with projects of including projects cities, chartered as the law addresses . statewide concerns . . .” important (Sen. 49, 135, Cone. Res. No. (2003-2004 Sess.) Stats. 2003 ch. Reg. res. 6833-6834.) pp. H.C.,

But (see as we noted earlier ante), the view to pt. Legislature’s what constitutes a statewide concern is not determinative in resolving constitutional before us. question This court considered similar legislative findings regard to the statute The Regents of of requiring University California to and the court concluded that pay prevailing wages, those (S.F. Council, were not findings Labor Cal.3d at controlling. supra, 26 790-791; Riverside, see pp. County 286-287.) 30 Cal.4th at supra, pp. we such Although give statements by Legislature great weight (Baggett v. Gates, 136), 32 supra, Cal.3d at the resolution of constitutional p. challenges to state laws falls within the judicial not power, legislative power. (County Riverside, 286-287; 316; Sonoma 23 County, Cal.3d at supra, p. “ is, 1 Bishop, supra, 63.) Cal.3d at ‘It and emphatically, province duty ” of the what the law judicial is.’ v. department, say (McClung Employment 467, Development (2004) 34 Cal.4th Dept. P.3d Cal.Rptr.3d [20 1015], (1803) 60]; v. quoting Marbury Madison 5 U.S. 111 L.Ed. see [2 Lockyer City County and San Francisco 33 Cal.4th 1068 [17 Moreover, 459].) P.3d we are hesitant to Cal.Rptr.3d “especially” abdicate to the view of the “when Legislature’s issue the issue [as here] involves the division of between local and that same power government Riverside, Legislature.” (County at p. case, been that no concern has

In this we conclude statewide cities that charter the state’s justifying regulation presented funded to workers hired to construct locally their contractors to pay require concern that there is no statewide works. In of our conclusion light here, law is we need not determine whether state’s Fed. (California Savings, related to ... resolution” of that concern “reasonably avoid 17) unnecessary and is tailored” to “narrowly here correct (id. 24). The trial court was interference in local governance mandate, a writ of Court Union’s for deny petition plaintiff the trial court’s judgment. affirmed Appeal properly

Disposition in turn affirmed the of the Court of which We affirm the judgment Appeal, a writ of mandate. the Union’s denying trial court’s judgment petition J., Chin, J., J., J., Baxter, concurred. Corrigan, C. Cantil-Sakauye, case that we resolve WERDEGAR, J., Dissenting. dispute requires This entities granted and a charter two city, specific between the Legislature hand, On the one our state Constitution. “[t]he lawmaking authority which Legislature this State is vested in the California legislative power Const., IV, (Cal. art. . . . .” Assembly consists of the Senate state, except “the entire law-making authority wields and all referendum” and exercise “may of initiative and right people’s denied necessary are not or by implication which legislative expressly powers (1971) (Methodist Saylor Sacramento v. Hosp. it the Constitution.” to hand, under 161].) On the other 488 P.2d affairs” home rule” or “municipal called the alternately “municipal what is all ordinances doctrine, to “make and enforce charter cities are empowered affairs,” “shall and such ordinances in and regulations respect municipal XI, Const., (Cal. art. therewith.” all laws inconsistent supersede (a).) subd. to enact case, lawmaking exercised its powers

In this the Legislature Code, referred to as the Labor commonly to 1861 of sections 1720 law, of the prevailing requires payment which generally contrast, By funded construction projects. to workers on publicly lawmaking (Vista), powers a charter exercised its city, of Vista defendant from contracts (in instances) prohibits most to enact an ordinance In this area of overlapping wage. payment requiring exists. tension constitutional lawmaking authority, Constitution. of the California arbiter of the meaning court is the final

This law, or federal constitutional law statutory when we interpret Unlike where our decisions can be overturned or the by, Legislature respectively, Court, United States we are the last word on the Supreme meaning err, state Constitution. If we our decision can be corrected an only by amendment to that Constitution. when Accordingly, approaching dispute between the and a charter under the affairs municipal doctrine, we are with a solemn and delicate charged fairly obligation balance and conflicting interests resolve the tension inherent in reasonably such disputes. Instead, to this case is neither fair nor majority’s reasonable. approach First, majority goes astray by making series analytical missteps. Vista’s ordinance

concluding comes within the zone of protected municipal affairs, the majority places unjustified weight Vista’s fiscal interest on the saving money construction of and an relies on public buildings, outmoded Era” decision that a different “Depression (maj. law interpreted ante, at 558-559) opn., long ago more modem economic eclipsed by ideas.

Second, law, the full failing appreciate of the prevailing wage impact the majority significantly undervalues the statewide economic concerns addresses, and fails to accord to the appropriate weight Legislature’s express findings declarations that the law should apply to charter cities and that it addresses a matter of statewide concern. Finally, fails to majority recognize difference—critical in the context of municipal governance independence—between state regulations affecting employees those affecting private who contract with employees the city. reasons,

For these I dissent.

I. Discussion As the we resolve majority recognizes, over the disputes scope affairs doctrine set forth test Fed. applying California Savings & Loan Assn. v. City Los 54 Cal.3d 1 Angeles 569, 812 P.2d (California Fed. Savings). we ask whether a Preliminarily, 916] city’s exercise falls within the legislative zone of its power and, so, affairs if whether with the local ordinance compliance conflicts with state law. If a court that a determines local law addresses a matter within the affairs of the charter and that it conflicts with municipal city law, a state the court then decide must whether the state law a addresses matter of “statewide concern”—what the Fed. Savings court California termed “the bedrock which the conflict between and inquiry through (Id. local 17.) interests is “If the the adjusted.” statute fails to p. subject concern, as one of then the charter measure conflicting statewide qualify city ” the is a affair’ and reach of enactment.’ ‘municipal ‘beyond legislative “the the (Ibid.) But if court is state statute is one subject persuaded concern that the statute related resolu reasonably of statewide and is to its tion, a then measure ceases to be affair’ conflicting ‘municipal XI, 5(a), tanto and the is not article section pro Legislature prohibited by from statewide dimension its own tailored enactments.” addressing by (Ibid.) a as a of “state of “statewide concern” condition

Requiring showing a the state state to articulate dimension to legislative supremacy” requires municipal law that identifiable interests.” “demonstrably transcend[s] 17.) This in Fed. 54 Cal.3d at turn tends (California Savings, supra, p. that “areas are of intramural will not be invaded only” ensure which concern state, core charter city values of by thereby government.” “preserving (Ibid.) decide is not a today

As the issue we a majority acknowledges, legal, factual, ante, 558), it we one and in must undertake (maj. opn., resolving case, of each individual exercis an evaluation facts circumstances Fed. 54 Cal.3d at review. ing independent Savings, {California is neither to determine what consti fn. empowered “[T]he into a tutes a affair nor to such an affair matter of statewide municipal change (1969) v. Jose 1 Cal.3d (Bishop City Cal.Rptr. concern.” San [81 137].) a of statewide is ulti 460 P.2d constitutes matter concern “[W]hat (1982) decide an issue for the courts to . . . .” Gates mately (Baggett too, 874].) So claim 649 P.2d city’s [185 affairs that some matter falls within zone protected will be decided not but the courts. by city, by doctrine A. Does Come the Protected Zone Vista’s Ordinance Within

Municipal Affairs? construct- levels of contract workers asserts majority “[t]he ” (Maj. funded works are affair.’ certainly ‘municipal ing locally ante, to conclude that the No citation to is authority required opn., infrastructure, housing, whether it be of a financing proper provision of a chartered civic the business buildings, city, libraries or other hospitals, for the Vista tax increase to citywide pay or otherwise. has sales imposed of its civic buildings. and renovation of some design, cost of the construction state, alone, Vista not shared these costs are be borne That works at issue fall within finding factor in favor of a significant Roads McGuire (See Southern Co. v. affairs doctrine. California an “the entire cost” of 121-122 P.2d 412] [because to Blvd. in Los “is be met improvement Sepulveda Angeles and defrayed state,” by the road is not affair of the project strictly municipal city].) however, is not whether the and question, construction design physical affair, do, of Vista’s civic constitute a buildings as but municipal they whether Vista’s choice not to construction firms with require private which (or contract) it has contracted will the state pay prevailing wage its construction worker is also a matter within the employees city’s municipal affairs, affairs. Vista contends a charter internal fiscal labor city’s including issues, and fall within the employment necessarily home rule municipal doctrine. Of (b) relevance is section subdivision of article XI of the Constitution, California which a nonexclusive list of the provides types matters within the falling home rule doctrine. That section municipal pro vides: “It shall be in all charters to competent city addition to provide, Constitution, those allowable provisions this and by by the laws of the State constitution, (1) for: and regulation, government force city police (2) subgovernment in all or of a (3) (4) conduct of part city city elections and plenary authority hereby to the granted, subject restrictions of this only article, thereto, which, therein or provide amendment by manner in which, which, method by times and the terms for which the several officers and whose employees compensation by paid city removal, shall be elected or and for their appointed, for their compensa tion, and for the number of clerks and other deputies, that each employees have, shall and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such clerks and other deputies, employees.”

In light this constitutional provision, level of the salary mayor council city affairs, members clearly falls within a city’s as does level compensation of the “city force” as well police as those city involved in the employees in all or “subgovernment of a such as part city” Const., XI, 5, clerks and other “deputies, (Cal. art. employees.” (b), subd. added; Jose, italics see v. Bishop San Cal.3d 56 [the did not intend the law to to electricians apply workers]; employed Sonoma County Public Organization of Employees County Sonoma 314-318 903, 591 P.2d state law precluding increase for salary county 1] [a violated the home employees rule provisions Const.].) But the more removed workers are from the heart of city government, less the case, interest in city’s legitimate their controlling This compensation. involves no Vista example, (or Vista has contracted employee. intends contract) firms, with and construction private design which in turn have hired (or hire) workers, will construction private who will be not Vista but paid firm, construction firms. If a firm underbids the it is the not the project, that must the workers. these workers still contract city, Accordingly, pay be as who are fairly cannot characterized necessary employees 5, Const., XI, (Cal. all “subgovernment maintain of a art. part city” (2)), (b), subd. item nor considered clerks and other of “deputies, employees” (id., (4)). item To reach its that affairs conclusion Vista’s zone of protected municipal workers, nevertheless of wages majority includes the construction private (1932) relies on Pasadena v. Charleville 215 Cal. 384 uncritically City [10 of Act of (Charleville). Wage P.2d Charleville involved the Public Rate 745] (PWRA 1931), of a law of less statewide significantly scope impact 1931 law at case. than the modem issue in this More importantly, been In history. Charleville’’s has overtaken Charleville reasoning by limited because it court that the PWRA 1931 was a law of explained scope for the under wage did not fix or fixation be “purport provide paid contracts, 390, (Charleville, italics private” all employment broader, added) and an act that statewide suggested purporting impose wages would have encountered “difficulties constitutional regulation (1923) (ibid., Adkins v. 261 U.S. 525 Hospital Children’s questions” citing [67 785, 43 minimum L.Ed. S.Ct. invalidated a D.C. imposing 394] [which minors]). Adkins the late exemplar for women and was a notable court extolled the virtues of the freedom to high Lochner1 in which period known, contract over all other freedoms. As is well the principles nearly were thereafter era of constitutional animating bygone jurisprudence Court, and States Adkins itself was by Supreme United repudiated (1937) Parrish U.S. overruled in WestCoast Hotel Co. v. 300 specifically (See v. Berkeley L.Ed. generally 400 57 S.Ct. [81 578]. Birkenfeld 1001].) 550 P.2d (1976) 17 Cal.3d 155-156 [130 the United States Constitution Charleville’s Contrary premise law, that the state from a minimum imposing legislatures prohibited for for workers is now wages California minimum Legislature may provide Const., XIV, art. (Cal. Legislature may established. 1 provide firmly § [“The .”].) . . . minimum and for the welfare of general employees as the prevailing wage enforce laws such Accordingly, may whether has been untethered from law to address matters of statewide concern era. created constraints of the Lochner constitutional artificially Charleville, this the legal underlying In erosion of light assumptions was less markedly Cal. and because PWRA supra, 215. law, cannot be than Charleville extensive the modem prevailing Moreover, to our the obvious changes considered persuasive today. given decided, i.e., was its growth since when Charleville economy state’s (1905) 25 S.Ct. U.S. L.Ed. 539]. See Lochner New York [49 more modem the case was long ago and interdependence, eclipsed dictates that we abandon Charleville economic ideas. Common sense (See Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. it to the dustbin consign history. precedent 766, 771 P.2d may & F. City County 514] [“What of S. a later become a may at one time have been a matter of local concern time state.”].) matter of state concern controlled laws of general Because Vista’s interest in contract controlling wages private own workers is much less than its interest in levels of its dictating wage Charleville, effect 215 Cal. supra, absent the employees, legitimizing 384, as the sole consideration Vista’s asser remaining precedent, supporting tion of its is its desire to save on its autonomy money planned municipal local, has an works state public Every government, naturally projects. But insufficient of interest funds. this desire is conserving public general otherwise, itself to invoke the affairs doctrine. Were it no state law desires, could ever all over local state laws have prevail conflicting costs, increase whether it be to allow a potential city’s city’s firefighters to unionize (1963) Fire Inc. v. Los (Professional Fighters, City Angeles 158]), Cal.2d 276 384 P.2d cities to meet and Cal.Rptr. require [32 confer in faith with good employee regarding wages representatives hours ex rel. Seal Beach Police (People City Assn. v. Seal Beach Officers 1145]), 36 Cal.3d 685 P.2d or give peace Gates, an officers administrative before them demoting (Baggett v. appeal 32 Cal.3d supra, 128). Vista must to more than a ledger sheet point justify its contention that ordinance its falls within the affairs doctrine.

. B. Does the Law Address a Matter Prevailing Wage Statewide Concern? aside, The relative of Vista’s interest in its fisc strength preserving public the crux of this case is the conclusion that the law majority’s wage prevailing ante, fails to address a matter of statewide concern. In (Maj. opn., p. conclusion, reaching law’s majority disregards economic on our far-reaching has impact economy. Legislature effect, recognized law’s statewide wage having scope prevailing declared its intent in 2002 that rate of explicitly “[p]ayment prevailing diem wages to workers works per necessary employed public projects attract the most skilled workers for those and to ensure that work of projects 892, 1, (Stats. on those ch. highest quality performed projects” (a)(1), 5541), subd. works should never undermine “[p]ublic projects base in a wage community, that workers on works public requiring are rate of diem ensures that base projects wage paid prevailing per (id., (a)(2)), is not lowered” subd. and that it is a matter of “statewide concern” that works undertaken workers the public agencies pay later, (id., (a)(3)). A in a 2003 concurrent subd. wage year prevailing resolution, law specifically addressed prevailing cities, law to charter that “the state declaring with regard funds, with including to all subsidized broadly projects apply [should] cities, chartered as the law addresses statewide important the projects of Sess.) (Sen. (2003-2004 No. Stats. 2003 Reg. concerns . . . .” Cone. Res. 6833, 6834, added.) ch. italics res. pp. are entitled to Fed. great weight (California These statements legislative “ ” fn. 21 [give ‘great weight’

Savings, supra, Jose, San statements of Bishop “legislative purpose”]; ante, at [same]), a rule the majority acknowledges (maj. opn., 565-566) but fails honor. views, that the aside from the considered Legislature’s Even that would be undermined law addresses substantial statewide concerns is not a close As a charter cities allowed to out of opt question. were matter, held that the of uniform fair labor we have general promotion override local an statewide concern sufficient to standards is important Beach Police held in ex rel. Seal People For we example, prerogatives. Beach, Cal.3d that the meet-and- Seal City supra, Assn. v. of Officers Code, (MMBA) (Gov. Act confer of the Meyers-Milias-Brown provision Beach, a charter 3505) city, enforceable of Seal against City despite was § for the immediate charter amendment other among things, its city providing, We noted who in a labor strike. termination of any city employee participated manage- MMBA was “to that one of the improve personnel purposes the various agencies” ment and relations within employer-employee Beach, an meet-and-confer (Seal 597), requirement at and that p. “[t]he city’s scheme for regulating of the state’s legislative essential component such, 599). that state interest (id. outweighed at As practices” p. employment article the state Constitution under admitted the city’s power—authorized XI, (b)—to amend its charter. subdivision section supra, Los City Angeles, Fire Inc. v. Fighters, Similarly, Professional that a charter Angeles, city, argued application of Los 1960,2 right join which guarantees firefighters of Labor Code section concern,” union, and that case law matter of local prior addressed a “purely a chartered matters connected with public employment had held “that all 291.) Fire at Fighters, (Professional p. are affairs city municipal [citations].” This an examination of the that court rejected argument, explaining related statutes and several intent when section 1960 enacting Legislature’s town, subdivision, any city, nor county, incorporated political the State nor “Neither join any right firefighters deny or obstruct municipal corporation prohibit, shall other Code, (Lab. 1960.) organization their own choice.” fide labor bona to deal with labor relations on a

revealed “the was Legislature attempting those Fire (Professional Fighters, By enacting statewide basis.” laws, and general the Legislature general provided “adopted policies (Ibid.., the state.” throughout of labor rights obligations management added.) not to local italics “The total effect of all this was legislation deprive (chartered otherwise) and control manage or government right its fire but to create labor practices throughout departments uniformfair such, the a limited state. As local control to legislation may impinge upon extent, 294-295, (Id. but it is nonetheless a matter of state concern.” at pp. Gates, added, italics with quoted approval Baggett workmen’s 139.) “Labor are of the concern as relations same statewide tort, filing compensation, liability municipalities perfecting [and] , claims . . . all of which have been held to be law in governed by general contravention of local chartered cities.” Fire regulation by (Professional Fighters, law is to the same effect. Article XIV of the California

Constitution is entitled “Labor Relations.” Section 1 of that article provides Legislature for minimum and for the may provide general “[t]he welfare of . . . .” The is thus employees granted specific constitutional to address labor issues on a scale. It authority statewide Code, exercised that Labor power enacting providing expressly of this state to policy enforce minimum labor standards vigorously “[i]t in order to ensure are not under employees work required permitted substandard unlawful conditions or for that have not secured employers and to who with the law payment compensation, employers protect comply from those to who a at the attempt gain advantage competitive expense their workers (Lab. to with minimum labor standards.” by failing comply Code, 90.5, (a).) subd. 1931, first the

By enacting PWRA and then it a few later replacing years law, with the much an the created expanded prevailing wage framework, state, economic the Californians throughout applicable protecting and, extension, who work in the construction trades viability construction industry as whole. “The overall wage purpose prevailing law is to and benefit protect (Lusardi on works employees public projects.” Construction Co. v. 1 Cal.4th Aubry 985 Cal.Rptr.2d [4 643].) P.2d “This subsumes within it a number of general objective specific from substandard be if goals: protect wages might employees paid areas; contractors could recruit labor from distant union cheap-labor permit contractors; contractors to with nonunion to benefit the compete and to through efficiency superior well-paid employees; compensate with for the absence of employees higher wages job security nonpublic benefits at employment enjoyed by public quoted employees.” {Id. with Beach v. Industrial Relations City Long Department approval 904].) (2004) 34 Cal.4th 102 P.3d Cal.Rptr.3d 949

The evolution of the modem law strongly supports on funded cons wages considered view that Legislature’s paid publicly more than local As the majority recog truction concerns. projects impacts ante, 560-562), nizes at schedules are now established wage (maj. opn., pp. level, at the rather than the local and the state Director of of Industrial Relations considers levels throughout regional Department economies instead of on a This “trend toward focusing locality. particular ante, 561) economic makes sense in the regionalization” (maj. opn., modem, ante, where, 570) an (see world dis. as expert post-1932 opn., California, for State and Construction Trades Council of Building plaintiff below, (SBCTC) AFL-CIO testified construction workers travel miles many from their in the To allow Oakland to jobsites region. homes pay or Anaheim less than construction workers less than significantly Berkeley, Ana, Santa would create downward logically wages3 throughout pressure bottom, to an economic race to leading respective regions, contractors—union and nonunion—scramble to underbid competitors workers leave sufficiently construction contracts. When are depressed, trades, California, when the state’s economy construction requiring flourish, could skilled construction flush and construction projects import affects not just from outside the state. That situation negatively workers as a whole. economy local but California’s state city’s economy, the statewide in a second economy way, The supports ante, 560-562), mentioned but discounted by majority (maj. opn., in a statewide contractors on works requiring projects participate in the construction This allows apprentices apprenticeship program. program the state will with ensuring steady trades to learn on be job, supplied industry. workers in the construction stream of skilled and semiskilled joint and June California had 175 apprenticeship “Between April expert just wages. As SBCTC’s stated below: law affects more than State, negotiated and district labor councils have master “Throughout local craft unions wages, fringe benefits and other agreements with contractors’ associations that establish labor hourly agreements for uniform bargaining provide These employment. terms of collective worker, to require contractors wages, regardless employing of the contractor that is enjoy health care and multi-employer benefits so workers will plans, contribute to the same single a contractor. notwithstanding employment the lack of continuous with pension benefits fluctuating demands signatory respond relations structure enables contractors to This labor steady and to receive employment workers to maintain for labor and enables construction Code, 1773.1, (See them and their families.” Lab. pension protect § health and benefits that employer (a) wage law “shall be deemed to include prevailing diem under the [per subd. welfare, benefits]; Tax Bd. v. and vacation see also Franchise pension, for” health and payments 420, 1, 4, (1983) L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 2841] 463 U.S. fn. 2 [77 Laborers Vacation Trust vacation].) paid regional permit trust fund to workers [describing a workers’ construction . . Labor Standards (California . Div. programs Enforcement Constr, A., 316, 327, L.Ed.2d N. Inc. U.S. fn.

Dillingham 50,000 than 832].) 117 S.Ct. to SBCTC’s According expert, “[m]ore indentured men and women are in currently State-approved apprenticeship California.” The has in the construction trades in programs declared that are a vital of the educational programs part “apprenticeship 6605-6606) and that (Stats. in California” ch. system pp. state’s for system training promoting quality apprenticeship “[t]he construction trades the incentives depends upon provided prevailing Sess.) (Sen. (2003-2004 law” Cone. Res. No. Stats. 2003 res. wage Reg. 6833, 6834). ch. charter cities to out of the law undermines

Allowing wage opt prevailing this them the benefit of it workers trained in program by affording (by using without their for In his apprenticeship programs) paying privilege. below, declaration SBCTC’s “Because of the unstable expert explained: nature of contractor not construction-industry employment, particular might be to invest the an for a willing training multi-year resources apprentice and might not be able to individual to all the period expose apprentices different work in the to become a worker processes necessary journey-level craft. The current allows system multi-employer apprenticeship programs costs, to share the burdens and rewards of new workers. industry training The success of the next is vital apprenticeship programs training genera- tion of skilled construction workers in California.”

“The wage law bolsters the State’s prevailing training apprenticeship system by contractors on work who workers in requiring employ crafts to use from to meet apprenticeable apprentices state-approved programs minimum ratio of hours to hours. The specified apprentice journeyperson are contractors these at a lower rate. In this permitted pay apprentices so way, they provides employment apprentices can obtain the in a of work necessary on-the-job training variety processes law, from the contractors graduate “Absent programs.” that invest in would find at a training themselves apprenticeship competitive to contractors that do not disadvantage training. invest apprenticeship contractors could seek to hire Non-participating apprenticeship-program without contributed to the cost of their graduates having training.” Against the considerable of the evidence that the weight concern, law addresses an issue of statewide answer is not majority’s issue, but to reframe the thus asserts engage question. majority regional not whether labor standards question apprenticeship concern, address an issue of but whether “the state can statewide programs a charter to exercise its in the construction require purchasing power 576 in a that and way regional

market subsidizes vocational supports wages ante, while the charter costs.” training, increasing city’s (Maj. opn., 561-562.) What of the ignores this entire pp. reframing premise us, before and the one that has continued to vex courts over the dispute years, the state can override a local financial sometimes choices—even city’s as it reason (i.e., ones—so has sufficient with addressed long law concerns). statewide strong costs,

Moreover, fails to Vista’s focusing narrowly majority wide-angle adhere to the Fed. test that us use a Savings requires California lens, that “courts should avoid the error of cautioning ‘compartmentalization,’ is, area either a of off an entire of cordoning governmental activity Savings, affair’ or one of statewide concern.” Fed. (California ‘municipal Thus, law, 54 Cal.3d at while the supra, effect laments, as the be that Vista and other charter cities more majority may pay law, which their works purpose prevailing wage projects, and not to make them more but to stabilize ignores, is majority pay a matter of the construction trades. latter is unquestionably support statewide substantial concern.

Finally, reframing majority gives question, construction, law a and failing appreciate sweeping limited cramped it control on nature of the instead as an unwarranted legislation viewing But courts give local must spending priorities. are not goals

liberal construction so that the of the law general purpose Relations, Industrial Department supra, defeated. Beach v. (City Long of 950; 14 1589 Aubry (1993) Cal.4th at McIntosh v. Cal.App.4th stat- will construe prevailing wage Cal.Rptr.2d liberally [18 680] [“Courts v. ....”]; utes & Trades Council State Construction Building of California [same].) Duncan Cal.Rptr.3d Cal.App.4th 507] [76 decided, the case is reframed the to be asserts majority issue Having County v. Employees Sonoma Public County Organization controlled Sonoma, San Labor Council v. Regents Francisco P.2d (1980) 26 Cal.3d 785 University [163 California (2003) 30 277], Court Cal.4th County Superior Riverside ante, one 562-564.) key But 66 P.3d (Maj. opn., Cal.Rptr.2d 718]. (or disputes all involved the labor factor those cases: distinguishes rule home actual While employees. involving) public entity’s cities, and the the affairs of concerned with state intrusion into doctrine is Const., (Cal. mentions certain city employees state Constitution specifically cases XI, 5, doctrine nor the three (b)), art. neither the home rule subd. the city. those not say cited have much about employed San Francisco County, Sonoma in Unlike the involved employees Council, Riverside, affected the instant County Labor and the workers by not, considered, are workers case are and cannot be Vista’s employees. They trades—electricians, roofers, car- in the landscapers, construction plumbers, from areas in the region, have traveled many penters—who presumably been, be, has have or will hired the construction firms by who the trio of cases cited majority or will None of engaged engage. a matter of undermines the conclusion that the law addresses cities, for those not substantial charter employed statewide concern counties or the state’s universities.

The finds this factor “irrelevant.” majority inexplicably key (Maj. opn., ante, But a charter to control the of its city’s power compensation to governance, those employees, especially integral municipal expressly Const., XI, 5, (Cal. (b).) the state Constitution. art. subd. recognized by § contract not. workers is compensation private

II. Conclusion The California decided that the construc Legislature long ago stabilizing tion trades and ensuring steady of skilled semiskilled workers supply those trades was beneficial to our state’s economic health. Accord long-term states,4 like other the federal ingly, Legislature, many government,5 cities,6 law, even some enacted a entities to prevailing wage requiring public 4 Thirty-one (Alaska prevailing wage states have enacted a to law. Stat. 36.05.010 §§ 36.05.900; 22-9-315; 31-55a; Ark. Code Ann. 22-9-301 to Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-53 to Del. §§ §§ 29, 6960; 104-4; Code Ann. Comp. tit. Haw. Rev. Stat. 104-1 to 820 Ill. Stat. 130/1 to § §§ 130/12; 5-16-7-5; highway Ind. Code Ann. 5-16-7-1 to Stat. Kan. Ann. 68-2317 §§ § [for contracts]; 337.550; 26, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 337.505 to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 1303 to §§ §§ 1314; Ann., Code, 149, 17-226; Md. Code State Fin. & Proc. to 17-201 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. §§ 27H; 408.558; 177.44; 26 to Mich. Comp. Laws to Minn. Stat. 177.41 to Mo. §§ §§ §§ 408.551 290.340; 18-2-432; Rev. Stat. §§ 290.210 Mont. Code Ann. 18-2-401 to Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 338.095; 34:11-56.47; 338.020 to §§ N.J. Stat. Ann. 34:11-56.25 to N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-4-17; 220.3(a); 13-4-10.1 to N.Y. Labor Rev. Code §§ Law Ohio Ann. 4115.03 § §§ 4115.16; 279C.870; 165-17; Or. Rev. Stat. 279C.800 to 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. 165-1 to R.I. §§ §§ 37-13-17; 12-4-415; Gen. Laws 37-13-1 to Tenn. Ann. Tex. §§ Code 12-4-401 to Gov’t Code §§ 2258.058; 29, Ann. projects]; §§ 2258.001 Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. state construction Wn. § [for 39.12.900; 21-5A-11; Rev. Code 39.12.010 to W.Va. Code 21-5A-1 to Wis. Stat. §§ §§ 66.0903; 27-4-413; 5, 50, Wyo. § Stat. Ann. 27-4-401 to see Guam Code Ann. tit. ch. §§ 3, 1494, 1931, 411, (Mar. See the Davis-Bacon Act ch. 46 Stat. codified at 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148); Binghamton U.S. v. Construction Co. 347 U.S. 176-177 L.Ed. §§ 438], 74 S.Ct. Code, Angeles chapter See Los Administrative division article section 10.7.1 id., contracts); (requiring payment (specifically all section 10.7 doctrine); waiving city’s rights under the affairs see also San Francisco Code, U, 6.22(E) (“All chapter Administrative article section contractors and subcontractors workers who toil on construction pay region cities out of funded construction publicly projects. Allowing opt law—not reason touching constraints that state but to save the city money—seriously governance independence, simply the law and is to goals contrary undermines the the prevailing close, not, which it is intent of the Even were issue Legislature.8 explicit this court to err on the side of applicable precedent requires upholding of concern to “There must doubt whether a matter which is always be power. concern to a both and the state is of sufficient statewide justify municipalities as a ‘strictly new intrusion into an area legislative traditionally regarded doubt, however, Such ‘must be resolved in favor of the affair.’ municipal ” Gates, (Baggett of the state.’ legislative authority 140, Fed. Savings, supra, with quoted approval California Because the characterizes Vista’s interest mistakenly saving majority affairs on its construction as within the money falling projects doctrine, to to obvious weight fails accord sufficient concomitantly law, I interests served dissent. by statewide economic prevailing Liu, 1, concurred. County pay shall improvement work or for the of San Francisco

performing .”). wages projects on such rate of . . . its workers that more are 120 cities in the state of California. SBCTC states in its brief There charter population than half the state’s lives in charter cities. city’s Legislature recently specify prohibits acted that if a charter ordinance The to Code, (defined (b)(1) subd. agreement by of a Pub. Contract project § consideration labor bargaining agreement that establishes terms and conditions “prehire as a collective funding including wages) project, works “state or financial employment,” Code, 2502). (Both (Pub. support project” § be used to that Contract assistance shall not 431, 2, (2011-2012 enacting Reg. ch. Sen. Bill No. 922 provisions § added Stats. necessary Sess.).) legislation that because history even insists opinion, repeatedly

law. a matter of method as well as result. decision is a

Today’s misstep where a municipal specifically pro- Unlike cases a state limits prerogative text, is no tected the instant one “with unmistakable by constitutional dispute (Ex signs parte to us between domain of state and local guide powers.” (1920) 442].) P. our instinct Accordingly, Daniels Cal. 640 [192 court, however, casts toward should be at its judicial restraint peak. and Because the arbitrarily Legislature’s restraint aside curtails the power. court in an “it becomes us to exercise more moves area where incautiously (ibid,.), than the usual I dissent. caution” respectfully

I. XI, Constitution (a) Article section subdivision California pro be in to that the city vides: “It shall competent any city provide make and all and governed regulations thereunder enforce ordinances may affairs, to to restrictions and limitations respect municipal only subject in their charters to matters shall be they several and in other provided respect this to to Constitution subject general pursuant laws. charters adopted charter, affairs shall and with any existing supersede respect further (b) shall all Subdivision laws inconsistent therewith.” supersede “It shall be in all charters to in addition city provide, provides: competent Constitution, this the laws of the State by those allowable and by provisions constitution, force[,] city for: (1) regulation, government police and elections[,] (3) (2) all or conduct of city[,] subgovernment part to the hereby and is restrictions (4) authority subject only plenary granted, which, article, thereto, the by this therein or amendment manner provide which, which, and the for which the several the method the times terms officers and whose employees compensation paid removal, shall be elected or and for appointed, their their compensa- tion, and for the number of clerks and other that each deputies, employees have, shall and for the method of compensation, appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such clerks and other deputies, employees.” (Italics added.) states,

As the correctly court under article “the this ordinances of charter cities state law with but supersede affairs’ . . . state law respect ‘municipal ” ante, with supreme matters of ‘statewide concern.’ respect (Maj. opn., omitted.) citation what constitutes a affair” Determining “municipal or a “matter of statewide concern” in the course of resolving conflicts between state mandates has an not been task. municipal prerogatives easy Nevertheless, several have cases. important emerged from our principles

First, XI, when we considered have Constitution article section 5 California and similar constitutional home rule for counties for the provisions California, we University have been most of home rule protective preroga tives in the text of Constitution. explicitly recognized our Most prominently, we have limited invalidated state laws interfere with the unduly of local prerogative governments to set the salaries of their own employees. (See (2003) County Riverside Court 30 Cal.4th 278 Superior [132 718]; P.3d Cal.Rptr.2d Regents San Francisco Labor Council v. University 608 P.2d of California 277]; Sonoma County Organization County Public v. Sonoma Employees of of (1979) 903, 23 Sonoma).) Cal.3d 591 P.2d (County 296 Cal.Rptr. [152 1] of

Second, in whether a statute to a charter determining state bemay applied we city, have examined “extramural” dimension of “extramunicipal” is, statute—that reach of the local beyond controlling statute merely (1991) matters. Fed. & Assn. v. (California Savings City Angeles Loan Los of 1, 17, 569, 54 Cal.3d 812 P.2d A (CalFed).) 23-24 Cal.Rptr. strong [283 916] dimension bemay conclusion statute extramunicipal supports 128, ibid.; (See on Cal.3d (1982) charter cities. v. Gates 32 imposed Baggett 232, 874]; 138-140 P.2d Pac. Tel. Co. v. & Cal.Rptr. City 649 & Tel. [185 766, (1959) San Francisco 51 Cal.2d P.2d County 775-776 [336 514] of determination, In this we examined not Telephone).) have making {Pacific stated statute’s but also whether the statute simply goals, reasonably Bradley (1992) related to those v. 4 Cal.4th 410 goals. {Johnson [14 990].) P.2d seek to micromanage 841 Statutes that Cal.Rptr.2d municipal affairs objective without clear have been held inapplicable extramunicipal Sonoma, to at (See, charter cities. 23 Cal.3d e.g., County supra, of a 317-318 no concern to state pp. justify statewide [finding extramunicipal to their law state funds to cities that increases restricting grant cost-of-living employees].)

581 Third, actually to which a state law courts will also assess degree a law constrains local The fact that state intrudes into municipal prerogatives. rule, itself home does not in traditional areas of decisionmaking, even to law a sufficient of intrusion to render degree inapplicable establish Thus, law govern we held that state may charter cities. have example, law local where the state allows numerous of relations aspects employment their employ- the ultimate governments say managing compensating Beach Assn. v. Seal (See City ees. ex rel. Seal Beach Police People of Officers (Seal Beach) 685 P.2d (1984) Cal.Rptr 36 Cal.3d 1145] [205 cases, it has been held that of ... an unbroken series employee [“[I]n a chartered even in city, regard over local enactments of ‘general prevails affairs, to be to be strictly matters which would otherwise deemed municipal matter law is of statewide concern.’ subject general where [Citation.]”]; id. meet and confer with [statutory duty employees at p. cities]; Baggett over conditions of charter changes employment applies Gates, Bill of at Officers’ Procedural p. Safety Cal.3d supra, [Public cities]; Inc. v. Los Fighters, Fire Rights applies Professional 384 P.2d Angeles 294-295 158] cities].) unions to charter [statutory right firefighters join applies Fourth, in affair or statewide what constitutes considering municipal ’ is, concern, “courts the error of ‘compartmentalization, should avoid off area either activity ‘municipal an entire cordoning governmental (CalFed, 54 Cal.3d supra, affair’ or one statewide concern.” “ avoid is that ‘the constitu- reason courts should such compartmentalization . . tional affairs is not a fixed or static . quantity concept municipal [but ” one which it is changes with conditions changing upon operate.’ that] 17-18, This (Id. Telephone,supra, quoting Pacific involves asserted has with force when the case operated principle particular rule not the text of Constitution home prerogatives explicitly protected CalFed, XI, (See 17-18 supra, article section 5. 54 Cal.3d at pp. [upholding banks]; Telephone, state law tax displacing savings Pacific control displacing 51 Cal.2d at state law [upholding lines].) construction and maintenance telephone the shifting fourth is that in order to determine corollary A of this principle engage courts will legislative power, boundaries between state and municipal to relevant changes in factual to the nature of historical understand inquiry cases, will be general, In some the evidence considered determination. (See, facts. 51 Cal.2d e.g., Telephone, supra, noticeable judicially Pacific service “a vast in conditions” related to [relying change telephone 776 p. lines in over the 50 to conclude that years placing telephone previous is time a affair but a matter streets “is not at the present municipal cases, an has involved concern”].) In other the factual inquiry statewide (See examination of and evidence in the trial record. legislative findings 582

CalFed, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 21-24 & fn. 21 in [engaging extensive analysis legislative and trial court to findings conclude that a statute eliminating of local entities to tax power banks savings to charter applies cities].) As CalFed “When a court explained: invalidates a charter statute, measure in favor of a conflicting state the result does not necessarily rest on the conclusion that the subject matter of the former is not appropriate means, rather, regulation. It that under the historical circum- stances presented, state has a more substantial in interest than subject (Id. the charter city.” time, At the same “a decision favoring charter city measure preclude in a superseding legislation [does not] later case if the fact-bound justification—the statewide dimension—is subse- (Ibid.) demonstrated.” quently decision,” said, hinge CalFed “[T]he “is the identification of a convincing basis for legislative action originating concerns, extramunicipal one justifying legislative based on supersession sensible, pragmatic (Ibid., added.) considerations.” italics

Finally, we have critically, held that long there is a doubt as to “[w]hen whether an matter, regulation relates to a attempted or to a state both, if it be the mixed concern of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the legislative (Abbott authority state.” v. City (1960) Los Angeles Cal.2d CalFed, 974]; P.2d Cal.Rptr. see [3 supra, 24; Gates, at p. Baggett supra, Cal.3d at The basis for this rule Daniels, was articulated in Ex long ago parte 183 Cal. at 640: “ ‘with no unmistakable us between signs guide the domain of state and local it powers, becomes us to exercise more than the usual caution not to refuse the sanction of judicial which authority legislation supposed ” have exceeded a so difficult to locate and boundary define.’ This principle a variant of the general rooted in the proposition, separation powers, “ ‘ there is doubt as act Legislature’s “[i]f power any given case, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the action. Such Legislature’s restrictions and limitations [imposed by are to be construed Constitution] strictly (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown 1215], 624 P.2d bracketed language italics in Foundation, Legal omitted.) italics Pacific mind,

With these let us now examine principles today’s opinion.

II. The court ignores or above in its misapplies principles conducting foremost, First and analysis. court discounts as irrelevant the record evidence the state’s demonstrating interest in extramunicipal supporting construction labor markets and the Court apprenticeship programs. Although of below concluded that the record and Appeal evidentiary legislative findings significantly law wage that the prevailing insufficient to establish

were interests, It the this rejects proceeds the court approach. state’s furthered the interest merit state’s demonstrating the facts on the that theory instead of law. us is a question because the issue before little or no consideration not controlling. court... are the or the trial Legislature “Factual findings by are areas of governance decision as to what The [Citation.] (Maj. one.” ultimately legal and are concerns concerns what statewide ante, at opn., findings that factual No one suggests the court with strawman.

But jousts be “controlling.” important point, the or trial court should by Legislature ante, 581-582), is such at that (see our pp. supported precedents amply this acknowledges are the The court actually relevant to findings inquiry. course, must, removed wholly it the is not as when it point, says inquiry “[o]f factual, ante, historical, 557) at and (maj. opn., from and hence realities” CalFed, from guidance pages then recites the above quoted 17-18, This the factual and historical nature of inquiry. emphasizing however, for in vain recitation turns out to be an one searches empty gesture, in the court’s guidance analysis for discernible CalFed’s application law. there is none. wage put, prevailing Simply factual for say That not to historical and justifications devotes law unmentioned in The court prevailing go today’s opinion. wage an expert four detailed a declaration submitted describing paragraphs California, and Trades Council of State Construction Building plaintiff ante, 560-562.) the court the declara says, AFL-CIO. As (Maj. opn., effects on construction tion file law’s beneficial explains prevailing markets, labor markets increasing labor those regionalization set generally to a are long jobsite, workers travel distances fact than locally, rather regionally importance that train the next of skilled generation in supporting apprenticeship programs (Ibid.) workers. why

After this reading lengthy plausible explanation quite law, analysis some might enacted one expect how much the historical and factual weight underpinnings that examines matter should have in whether it addresses a of statewide determining the law holding, light One some court’s might concern. expect explanation, falls “a basis for identifying convincing legislative record short why concerns, legislative super- one originating extramunicipal justifying action sensible, (CalFed, supra, based on considerations.” pragmatic session evidence, than the record the court simply But rather assess labor standards “Certainly regional waves it away changes subject: workers are statewide concerns when and the of construction proper training the considered in abstract. But the here is not whether the question presented state has an in government abstract interest labor conditions and vocational Rather, the training. whether state question presented is the can a require to exercise its in the in construction market a purchasing power way supports regional wages subsidizes vocational while training, the charter costs. would increasing city’s No one doubt that the state could use its own resources to and vocational in support wages training the state’s construction but the industry, can state achieve these ends in interfering ' the fiscal of charter cities? . . . can policies think that is of nothing “[W]e greater municipal concern than how a tax will city’s dollars be nor spent; ’ which could be less anything interest to other jurisdictions.” taxpayers Therefore, 407.) Cal.4th Bradley, supra, the here Union {Johnson cannot state of the of charter cities justify regulation practices spending merely by identifying some indirect effect the econo regional state ante, mies.” italics.) (Maj. opn., original with,

This merits several To in passage comments. the begin labeling “abstract,” state’s interest the court does more than a nothing employ diminish rhetorical device to the of that interest. The court does importance not what the sense state’s interest in labor explain supporting regional skilled, markets and programs designed to maintain apprenticeship highly construction workforce California is “abstract.” well-paid throughout Surely the court is not the for entire faulting Legislature, representative body our state, trends, on the basis of labor market legislating goals, policy to, and laws of not supply demand that have been say, particularized San City Vista or If the court is instead Diego County. using “abstract” mean that the has not sufficiently demonstrated law will truly regional benefit labor markets and support apprenticeship hold, one then would with the Court expect court programs, Appeal, that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish the law’s But the court so the efficacy. sufficiency the evidence rejects position, cannot concern. be court’s really

If the court uses term “abstract” mean that inquiry present us to consider the statewide concern not in isolation but in relation to requires interests, the asserted then I But if we are to agree. assess interests, relative and local then should look state we not strengths why to evidence on the bearing strengths of those interests? That is respective we kind evidence examined CalFed to determine that precisely acted what had been local formerly state constitutionally eliminating (CalFed, 54 Cal.3d at 21-24 & fn. It also the prerogative. kind of evidence whether dimen pertinent assessing extramunicipal ante, (See law at sion issue robust trivial. Yet meaningful court dismisses the state interest “abstract” without simply factual and historical underpinnings. evaluation of its regulate the state seeks to on the fact that instead focuses court the charter that in a manner charter city’s purchasing power “increases] a ante, that charter at But it is clear hardly p. costs.” city’s (Maj. opn., abstract for present are less in how its tax dollars spent interest city’s in Our legitimate policy goals. precedents than the interest its state’s purposes its controlling interest in city’s that a charter unambiguously general indicate that a state law not itself to render inapplicable tax dollars is sufficient Beach, 591, for 36 Cal.3d supra, concern. In addresses a statewide Seal the Meyers- “meet confer” of requirement we held that the example, Code, with et did not conflict (MMBA; Act Gov. seq.) Milias-Brown § affecting charter amendments a charter to city the of prerogatives propose cents, dollars and the marginal As a sheer matter of relations. employment MMBA, management to of the which requires city cost cities administering and other compensation to to with its negotiate employees regarding impasse terms, to a at least as cities pay employment probably great requiring works. The statutory contract out for wage they public when prevailing fair and fire to labor practices police departments assure protections Gates, rule v. Baggett that we home upheld against challenges departments City Fire Inc. Los Fighters, Professional of substantial likewise Angeles, supra, imposed respectively, Indeed, every almost state monetary costs on the affected municipalities. entities, im- government laws directed regulation, including specifically the a its and other resources. In addition way money city spends pacts laws, like labor and environmental laws the California Environ- employment Code, et the (Pub. mental Act Resources Quality seq.) require the court resources to enforce. Unless substantial expenditure laws, a the challenges intends to invite home rule broad swath very that costs or otherwise constrains city’s fact a state law increases charter factor, determinative can its be or even money what do with cannot the factor, the the primary present analysis. ante, at (see

While fiscal interests invoking city’s maj. opn., forcefully lies at the fluids with [“Autonomy regard expenditure the court heart of it means to be an governmental entity.”]), what independent with, the limita- readily does not much less acknowledge, grapple apparent on a charter from an otherwise immunizing tions this rationale for Instead, undiscriminating, categori- the court for an opts state law. applicable cities, law inapplicable cal holds approach prevailing the intrusion into slight no matter how state’s interest how strong forward any of Vista has not Notably, City put charter city’s treasury. much, all, law would how if at the prevailing wage evidence indicating One might costs works issue. city’s projects increase the for, wonder, whether higher what you get you pay on principle at least offset by are partially wages required Mahalia, higher productivity (See better better skilled paid, workers. Prevailing in Government Contract A Wages Costs: Review of the Research 2.) Because the court’s does not reasoning any facts as depend costs, how much the law will actually increase the city’s even an presumably increase one dollar must be held to invade the “heart” ante, of the city’s autonomy. (Maj. opn.,

The such conclusion is a extremity symptom of additional problems with the court’s categorical relies on approach. majority precedent, this court’s chiefly decision in 80-year-old Pasadena v. Charleville 384, (1932) ante, 215 Cal. P.2d (Charleville). 389 (Maj. at opn., [10 745] But, 560.) out, as Justice p. Werdegar reasoning Charleville’s that the points not of does address matter statewide is concern based on a discredited of largely thoroughly constitutional limitations conception on J., ante, (See economic dis. of legislation. 570-571.) at opn. Werdegar, I pp. add would that the Charleville court’s notion of a state law that does address Act, a matter of statewide concern—the Public Works Alien Employment which barred aliens from (see on works being employed projects Charleville, at 399-400 the statute to pp. [analogizing California’s Alien Law, Land which aliens])—has sale land to prohibited agricultural (See been (1948) discredited. equally Oyama 332 633 U.S. [92 California 249, L.Ed. 68 S.Ct. Land [invalidating California’s Alien Law under the 269] clause]; 365, equal (1971) see also Graham v. Richardson U.S. protection 403 534, 372 L.Ed.2d 91 S.Ct. classifications based on alienage [29 1848] [state are “inherently close suspect subject judicial scrutiny”].)

It is that beyond dispute construction labor markets have become increas- ante, 561; ingly regional since Charleville was decided. (Maj. at dis. opn., p. J., ante, at Given that fact well opn. Werdegar, p. as obvious and 1932, in the changes legal since it is important landscape mystifying court does not flinch in to follow a continuing Lochner-era built on precedent (Lochner (1905) Lochner-era v. New York U.S. 45 L.Ed. premises. [49 539].) 25 S.Ct. But more than court’s adherence mystifying, ready Charleville is indefensible under the very court elsewhere precedents If recites even italicizes. Charleville’s holding not of reconsid- worthy “ ‘ eration, then is left “the what constitutional precept concept of is not a or static . . . one quantity changes [but that] affairs fixed ’ with the conditions which it is to ”? changing upon operate” (Maj. opn., CalFed, ante, 17-18, at at p. quoting quoting Pacific court.) 51 Cal.2d italics added Telephone, supra, court ” very commits “error that CalFed warned ‘compartmentalization’ against by “cordoning off’ local works contractors wages paid by (CalFed, as a affair.” If there room “municipal today’s opinion for a law to superseding challenge survive home rule “in a (id. I fail 18), justification” case” on a “fact-bound

later based future (because cannot) does it there is. say it—and the court not see the constitutional analyze instruction to Even without CalFed’s specific circum- changing on the basis of historical affairs concept stances, doctrine of Charleville under the there is reason to reconsider ample to revisit when stare That doctrine authorizes court precedent decisis. rule as to have left the old no “related of law have so far principles developed “facts have than of abandoned doctrine when more a remnant [citation]” the old rule to be as to have robbed changed, so or come seen so differently, (Planned Parenthood significant application justification [citation].” 833, 855 L.Ed.2d Casey (1992) Southeastern Pa. v. 505 U.S. [120 O’Connor, J.); Fireman’s Fund S.Ct. see Moradi-Shalal v. opn. (plur. 2791] P.2d Ins. Companies 58] on that “reexamination of [overturning nine-year-old precedent ground become when indicate an necessary precedent may subsequent developments unsound, reconsideration”].) earlier was or has become ripe decision Charleville satisfies these criteria. easily reaches

In addition to court its relying questionable precedent, a relevant distinction between categorical holding by denying interest in of its own and its interest city’s controlling wages employees building of of contractors controlling wages public employees private “If, contends, a works: as the Union law’s shift from has of workers local focus to focus made levels purely regional concern, funded works a matter of statewide then constructing locally public that would be true whether the case involved public employees private ante, 564.) for at This statement is employees.” (Maj. opn., predicate reliance on our cases that the not holding Legislature may directly court’s 562-564, (Id. city dictate the of charter compensation pp. employees. Court, 278; San discussing County Riverside v. 30 Cal.4th Superior supra, Francisco Council University California, supra, Labor v. Regents of Sonoma, 785; 296.) Cal.3d County the local But the nature of key court’s differences position ignores interest Most control of compensa- involved. importantly, municipal employee tion, of contract wages protected unlike control employees, explicitly XI, (b) article section subdivision California Constitution text of ante, (See 579-580.) and similar home rule provisions. constitutional Moreover, matter, the two of control are not comparable. as a types practical In budget. make the vast of a majority municipality’s salaries Employee up comprise Los salaries Angeles, example, employee percent (See Villaraigosa, Los Antonio Mayor budgets city departments. Angeles site, Questions, Web Balanced Asked Mayor’s Budget, Frequently Office <http://mayor.lacity.org/Issues/BalancedBudget/FrequentlyAskedQuestions/ index.htm> 2012].) July Interference with [as salaries would employee enormous, thus have an ongoing impact finances. And if the city sought control the salaries of some only such control employees, would interfere with the to set city’s ability schedules salary and pay differentials for its employees, decisions which in turn affect matters of morale, retention, employee and workforce cohesion that indeed to the go heart of Interference with municipal autonomy. salaries employee would also affect a likely long-term municipality’s pension obligations. None of these concerns is when the state sets a floor implicated for the employees of a with which a company does business to temporarily construct a work. This is not public a case about whether a state law can control salaries; it employee is about whether a state law can raise the cost of a work in order to further public otherwise legitimate policy goals. The court relies on two First, other factors to its support holding. it contends that “a state law of broad general is more application likely address a statewide concern than one that is narrow and in its particularized ante, application.” (Maj. opn., state law at issue not “[T]he minimum law of broad rather, general application; the law at here issue has a far narrower as it application, to the pertains only works public projects (Ibid.) of public agencies.” This lack of “further general under- application the Union’s assertion that the matter here mine[s] statewide presents Vista, concern and therefore a charter requires with the city, state’s comply law on the funded city’s locally works projects.” (Id. at p.

I agree general of a state law applicability as well as entities private conclusion that the law has an supports extra- important However, dimension. as a matter of fact there is no logic, reason to that a state law’s lack of suppose means it general applicability that, does not have a significant dimension. The court asserts extramunicipal law, in to contrast a minimum “the at wage law issue here has a far narrower it to the

application, pertains only works public projects public ante,' 564, agencies.” added.) at (Maj. opn., italics Yet works p. public California, are a projects multibillion-dollar annual in and charter enterprise cities, which contain (see over half the state’s dis. population opn. J., ante, 7), at fn. Werdegar, no doubt account for a p. substantial share of those dollars. Instead of this vast regulating enterprise imposing statewide minimum for construction workers wages through general legisla- entities, tion and applicable has chosen to private public influence such wages through market-based approach directing entities to purchasing power public union-level Instead of support wages. concern, indicating wage law is not a matter of statewide of the law entities application only public plausibly represents not labor markets is that direct regulation private legislative judgment that role the substantial given the statute’s goals necessary accomplish workers’ construction sector influencing private works projects play public acknowl- As the court and in apprenticeship programs. supporting use, in California been long laws have edges, prevailing ante, at (Maj. opn., these goals. country, accomplish throughout ante, 577-578, J., at fns. 554-555; Werdegar, pp. also dis. see opn. that state laws more intrusive there for that 6.) insisting only What basis is charter cities? be sectors may applied both regulate private laws at issue set the court relies is that “state The other factor on which standards, and impinged procedural consequently forth generally applicable substantive obligations.” than if had they imposed less on local autonomy Beach, ante, that our decision in Seal It is true (Maj. opn., observed that the “meet and confer” the MMBA’s requirement, upholding make and to to refuse an agreement council “retains the ultimate power (Seal footnote, Beach, 601.) In a 36 Cal.3d at p. own decision.” supra, its the substance of that there is a clear distinction between emphasize[d] “[w]e (Id. it is resolved.” and the which procedure by labor issue employee Seal Beach italics.) But this factor is not dispositive. fn. original a home rule laws will survive generally be read to may say procedural CalFed, supra, laws won’t. Both generally not that substantive challenge, Beach, Telephone, supra, Cal.3d which came after Seal and Pacific law, foreclosed state statutes that which remains good upheld areas of local from substantive decisions making important municipalities factor to be law is one concern. The substantive nature all the others discussed above. considered with together

III. is its for the disregard error in the court’s analysis most serious Perhaps concern a law is a matter of statewide that doubts about whether principle (Abbott of the state. the legislative authority must be resolved in favor of Daniels, 681; Ex 53 Cal.2d at p. parte Los Angeles, supra, a contest between two involves dispute Cal. Although present think should not state—one decisionmaking—local levels of democratic we rule. If kind) the winner no matter how (of some will be democracy law, cities could still bring we were to the prevailing uphold and ordinary process, to the Legislature through political their complaints be attentive to that state would legislators it seems at least plausible often they political support. of local officials on whom depend concerns However, unconstitutional as applied declared the having cities, beyond ordinary political the court has issue placed notes, on the meaning this court’s decisions As Justice Werdegar process. the California Constitution can be corrected only by constitutional amend- J., ante, (Dis. ment. It is hard opn. Werdegar, to believe that in case, answer, this where the text of our Constitution no clear provides correct outcome is so free of doubt that our usual instinct utterly toward restraint be judicial may abandoned. fairness,

In there is no reason to factor any single will expect properly resolve the case before us. The factors that the court does consider—the costs to the possible law’s lack of city, general law’s applicability, substantive as be opposed procedural character—may validly used assess the state’s and the relative interests. But the court refuses to city’s undertake a determine factual or historical the relative inquiry strengths interests, the state and even that is what our municipal though precedents Charleville, instruct. The court refuses to reconsider 215 Cal. supra, even its and factual though legal have been eroded underpinnings thoroughly over eight decades. The court refuses to see distinction any between munici- control of its own pal wages control of the employees’ of a contractor’s even the former is more employees, though likely disrupt and, latter, local unlike the autonomy the text of our explicitly protected by Constitution.

I have no to an to the objection all-things-considered approach present because it (1) the best we can do. But such an inquiry probably approach must consider all relevant not an truly arbitrary aspects inquiry, just few; (2) lead should us to reach limited instead of fairly holdings categorical should cause us “to exercise more than the usual pronouncements; caution” before invalidating work of a coequal, politically representative Daniels, (Ex 640). branch of 183 Cal. at government parte Today’s decision violates all three at a fixed arriving precepts conception that is neither rooted in the of our Constitution municipal autonomy language nor consistent with current realities. J., ante, (dis.

As Justice Werdegar Werdegar, explains opn. 573-576), the record evidence indicates that the law is a reasonable means of construction labor markets supporting regional There is no that the law interferes with apprenticeship programs. question But the law does not invade local autonomy. prerogative constitutional text. And it is not clear that the law’s expressly protected the legiti interference with is excessive in relation to municipal autonomy is, mate There in this aims to achieve. public purposes case, “a basis for action convincing legislative originating extramunicipal sensible,

concerns, based on pragmatic legislative supersession one justifying 18.) But even if there were 54 Cal.3d at (CalFed, considerations.” doubt, should restraint judicial prevail. some

I dissent. respectfully J., concurred.

Werdegar, of this notes the law was deemed (Chula (Stanislaus, Diego) Vista and Orange and and Charter Cities counties San “[s]everal Business, (Assem. Oceanside) agreements] . . . .” Com. on [project have banned labor Protection, Sess.) (2011-2012 Reg. Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 922 Professions and Consumer 2, 2011, Sept. amended give subject highlighted its commitment to year, Legislature returned to the Just this the Public using agreements. added to option project labor Section localities limits, Code, city’s or constrains “prohibits, that if a charter ordinance provides Contract project utilize a labor authority adopt, require, to or way governing board’s discretion support any be to funding or financial assistance shall not used agreement, . . then state . 11, 1.) (Stats. new are not city.” ch. Both laws projects awarded construction that blanket bans January repeal cities to ordinances establish until to allow effective agreements. project labor I write LIU, Justice dissent. J., Dissenting. Werdegar’s separately join I from that it prevent in the court’s shortcomings analysis additional highlight this case. resolving properly Constitution, XI, 5 of the California The court holds that article section from requiring home rule bars provision, works on public cities to construction workers to pay prevailing fails correctly, law the court stating While generally applicable projects. and the result it reaches. the wide between gap bridge analytical aon few factors great weight vague analysis puts The court employs are itself concedes while other factors refusing opinion consider law should whether the apply pertinent determining result, from the court’s As a no clear legal emerges charter cities. principle us is as it that the issue before a question

Case Details

Case Name: State Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista

Court Name: California Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 2, 2012

Citation: 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 529

Docket Number: S173586

Court Abbreviation: Cal.