State Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 529, 54 Cal. 4th 547, 279 P.3d 1022 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The wage levels for workers on a charter city's locally funded public works projects are a 'municipal affair' under the California Constitution's home rule doctrine. Therefore, a charter city ordinance governing such wages supersedes a conflicting state prevailing wage law.
Facts:
- In 2006, voters in the City of Vista, then a general law city, approved a sales tax to fund construction of several public buildings, including fire stations and a civic center.
- In 2007, Vista's City Attorney advised the city council that becoming a charter city would allow Vista to opt out of paying state-mandated prevailing wages on its public works projects, resulting in millions of dollars in savings.
- The Vista City Council held a special election on a ballot measure to become a charter city, with voter information materials explicitly stating the change would allow the city to choose when to pay prevailing wages.
- The ballot measure passed with approximately 67% of the vote, changing Vista into a charter city.
- Shortly thereafter, Vista amended a city ordinance to prohibit any city contract from requiring the payment of prevailing wages unless compelled by a state or federal grant or other specific circumstances.
- In October 2007, Vista's city council approved contracts to design and build two fire stations, and these contracts did not require compliance with the state's prevailing wage law.
Procedural Posture:
- The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO (the Union) petitioned the San Diego County Superior Court, a trial court, for a peremptory writ of mandate to compel the City of Vista to comply with the state's prevailing wage law.
- The trial court denied the Union's petition.
- The Union, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal, in a two-to-one decision, affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Union had failed to prove the existence of a statewide concern.
- The Union's petition for review was granted by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's prevailing wage law, a general state law, supersede a charter city's conflicting ordinance with respect to locally funded public works projects?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
No. California's prevailing wage law does not supersede a charter city's conflicting ordinance for locally funded public works projects because the wage levels for such projects are a municipal affair, not a matter of statewide concern. Applying the four-part test from California Fed. Savings, the court found that the wage levels of contract workers on locally funded public works are a quintessential municipal affair, as affirmed in the 1932 case City of Pasadena v. Charleville. The court rejected arguments that economic regionalization and updates to the prevailing wage law have transformed the issue into one of statewide concern. It reasoned that autonomy over the expenditure of public funds lies at the heart of municipal independence. The court found the distinction between public employees and private contract workers irrelevant in this context, relying on precedent like Sonoma County that established city employee salaries as a municipal affair. The court concluded that since the matter does not involve a statewide concern, the state law cannot interfere with the charter city's fiscal policies.
Dissenting - Werdegar, J.
Yes. California's prevailing wage law should supersede a charter city's conflicting ordinance because the law addresses matters of substantial statewide concern. The majority errs by relying on the outdated, Lochner-era precedent of Charleville and by undervaluing the modern economic realities the prevailing wage law addresses, such as preventing a regional 'race to the bottom' on wages and supporting a vital statewide apprenticeship system. The majority also incorrectly dismisses the critical distinction between a city's own employees, whose compensation is explicitly a municipal affair under the Constitution, and private contract workers. A city's general desire to save money is insufficient to override a state law that addresses broad economic and labor issues that demonstrably transcend municipal interests. The Legislature's express finding that this is a matter of statewide concern should be given great weight.
Dissenting - Liu, J.
Yes. California's prevailing wage law should supersede a charter city's conflicting ordinance, and the majority's analysis is methodologically flawed. The court fails to properly apply the CalFed test by refusing to engage with the historical and factual evidence demonstrating the statewide importance of the prevailing wage law. The majority's categorical reliance on a city's fiscal interests is overly broad and could be used to strike down any state law that imposes costs on cities. Furthermore, the court wrongly adheres to the 80-year-old Charleville precedent without considering changed economic conditions and legal principles. Crucially, any doubt as to whether a matter is of municipal or statewide concern must be resolved in favor of the state's legislative authority, a principle of judicial restraint the majority abandons.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the 'home rule' authority and fiscal autonomy of California's charter cities by carving out locally funded public works projects from the state's prevailing wage requirements. The ruling reaffirms the judiciary's power to define the scope of 'municipal affairs' versus 'statewide concern,' even in the face of contrary legislative declarations. By declining to overturn the 80-year-old precedent of Charleville, the court signals a resistance to arguments that modern economic interdependence can transform traditionally local matters into statewide concerns. This precedent allows charter cities to potentially lower construction costs but may also lead to wage suppression in certain areas and undermine statewide labor standards and training programs.
