Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves consolidated appeals concerning the interpretation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 27F, which mandates the payment of prevailing wages for public works. The primary issue is whether this statute requires a private company contracted for municipal refuse collection to pay its workers, specifically 'shakers,' at prevailing wage rates. In the first case, the court ruled in favor of the company, Vining Disposal Service, Inc., finding that 'shakers' were not 'operators' of 'equipment' as defined in § 27F, thus not entitled to prevailing wages. In another related case, the Attorney General sought declaratory judgment to void Vining's contract for not including prevailing wage schedules. The court ruled that while § 27F applied to 'shakers,' the contract was not void, ordering compliance with prevailing wage laws. The court dismissed Vining's argument for a narrow interpretation under the ejusdem generis doctrine and concluded that § 27F includes municipal refuse collection within 'public works.' The court found that § 27F primarily serves a remedial purpose, allowing for injunctive relief. The judgment on the 'shakers' action was reversed, and both cases were consolidated for further proceedings, including determining back wages owed, while affirming the Attorney General's action for broader relief. The interpretation aligns with legislative history and statutory language, supporting the prevailing wage application to municipal refuse services.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of 'Public Works' under § 27Fsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The term 'public works' includes municipal refuse collection, and the statute's context supports this broader interpretation.
Reasoning: The consolidated appeals focus on the interpretation of three key phrases in § 27F: whether 'public works' includes municipal refuse collection, whether contracts for services qualify as 'agreements of lease, rental or other arrangement,' and whether shakers are considered 'operators' of 'equipment.'
Ejusdem Generis Doctrine and Statutory Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected Vining's argument that 'other arrangement' should be narrowly construed and found that the statutory language supports a broader interpretation.
Reasoning: Vining contends that the term 'other arrangement,' which is broad enough to include such contracts, is limited by the preceding terms 'lease' and 'rental' under the doctrine of ejusdem generis. However, this canon should not be applied mechanically, and the language of the statute should be interpreted in a broader context.
Interpretation of G. L. c. 149, § 27Fsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether § 27F requires private companies contracted for municipal refuse collection to pay prevailing wages.
Reasoning: The appeals concern the interpretation of G. L. c. 149, § 27F, specifically whether it mandates a private company contracted to provide refuse collection services to pay its trash collectors wages at 'prevailing rates,' as determined by the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development.
Role of Injunctive Relief in § 27Fsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that § 27F, despite including criminal penalties, primarily serves a remedial purpose, allowing for injunctive relief.
Reasoning: However, § 27F is primarily a remedial statute, with criminal penalties serving to encourage compliance with civil duties, thus not precluding injunctive relief.
Validity of Contracts Under § 27Fsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the contract was not void under § 27F as it included provisions for compliance with prevailing wage requirements.
Reasoning: Another judge ruled that while § 27F did apply to shakers, the contract was not void as it included a provision for compliance with chapter 149’s wage stipulations, thus ordering Vining to comply with § 27F.