HEADLINES
Attorney James M. Williams was appointed by order of the Louisiana Supreme Court to serve as judge pro tempore of Orleans Parish Civil District Court....
GHW Managing Partner John Houghtaling is featured on the cover of New Orleans Living Magazine. In the article, Houghtaling talks about his passion for the law and the success of Gauthier, Houghtaling and Williams.
To say John Houghtaling loves cars would be an understatement. John's extensive collection of Lamborghinis and Ferraris is nationally known and has been featured on national TV.

Ohio Supreme Court Prevailing Wage Law

Publisher: GHW
Published On: 7/2/2009

Ohio Supreme Court confirms that Prevailing Wage Law only applies to work performed on the site of Public Improvement Project

The Ohio Supreme Court recently confirmed what has been the long-standing practice in Ohio that the prevailing wage law only applies to work performed on the site of a public improvement project. In Sheet Metal Workers International Assn., Local 33 v. Gene's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Slip Op. No. 2009-Ohio-2747, the plaintiff union filed a prevailing wage complaint and enforcement action against the defendant contractor alleging that the contractor had committed multiple prevailing wage violations on a certain public improvement project. The contractor had been awarded a contract to install the HVAC system on a new fire station being constructed in Medina County, Ohio. The fire station project qualified as a public works improvement subject to Ohio's prevailing wage law.

In the union's complaint, the union alleged that the contractor had violated the prevailing wage laws by failing to pay a certain employee at the prevailing wage rate for hours that he worked at an off-site fabricating shop where he fabricated duct work that was subsequently installed at the fire station.

As an initial matter, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the union only had standing to pursue the prevailing wage claims on behalf of the individual employee who had authorized the union to act on his behalf and not on behalf of other employees on the public improvement project. Specifically, the Court held "that a labor organization that obtains written authorization to represent one employee does not have standing as an 'interested party' . . . to pursue violations of the prevailing wage law on behalf of any other employee on the project."

Thereafter, the Court held that the prevailing wage statutes all refer to work performed on the job site and do not refer to off-site workers as being entitled to prevailing wage rates. The Court noted that its decision was in accordance with 70 years of industry custom and practice that the prevailing wage laws only apply to persons whose work is performed directly at the site of the public improvement project.