Marr v. ABM Carpet Service, Inc.

Citations: 286 N.J. Super. 500; 669 A.2d 864; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 591

Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; June 29, 1995; New Jersey; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On September 29, 1994, the New Jersey Department of Labor’s Wage Collection Section granted David Marr a default judgment of $10,000 against ABM Carpet Service, Inc. for failing to pay him a prevailing wage in accordance with the Prevailing Wage Act (N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.40 and 34:11-58). The award was based on an Audit Summary that indicated Marr was owed $14,737.25 for wage deficiencies from January 3, 1991, to October 15, 1992. Marr, employed by ABM from September 1988 to October 1992 as a non-union carpet installer on public works, was classified by the agency as a journeyman carpenter, as there is no specific classification for carpet installers under the agency's regulations.

ABM Carpet Service, Inc. filed an appeal on December 5, 1994, which was heard on June 8, 1995, with the court reserving its decision. The appeal is grounded in the Wage Collection Statute, which allows either party to appeal a judgment from the wage collection division to the Superior Court (N.J.S.A. 34:11-63). The court's judicial review typically examines whether the agency acted within its discretion, focusing on three inquiries: adherence to legislative policies, sufficiency of evidence supporting the agency's findings, and whether the agency made a reasonable conclusion from the facts.

The court notes that while the standard review often seeks to determine if the agency's actions were arbitrary or capricious, the defendant requests a de novo review, which would allow the court to reassess the facts independently. The Wage Collection Statute supports this broader review scope by permitting the introduction of new evidence on appeal (N.J.S.A. 34:11-65), suggesting that the court may conduct a de novo review of the agency's factual findings.

The statutory framework prioritizes the swift resolution of wage collection disputes rather than emphasizing deference to an agency's factfinding authority. Specifically, the legislation limits agency jurisdiction to cases involving claims under $10,000 and mandates a summary review process. The court finds that ABM Carpet Service, Inc. did not pay plaintiff David Marr the prevailing wage for carpet installation on public works from January 3, 1991, to October 15, 1992. The court dismisses the defendant's argument regarding the agency's classification of carpet installers as carpenters, noting the Prevailing Wage Act permits the agency to regulate classifications for wage determinations. Substantial deference is afforded to agency interpretations of the statutes they enforce, and the Department of Labor's classification is presumed reasonable. The agency's authority to establish prevailing wage rates and related classifications is supported by regulations that are also presumed reasonable unless proven otherwise. The defendant's evidence that the federal Department of Labor distinguishes between carpet installers and carpenters does not undermine the state agency's rationale for its classification, which relies on various criteria including work history, training, and industry practice.

The court dismisses the defense regarding the state’s failure to inform ABM Carpet Service, Inc. about the prevailing wage rate for carpet installers, citing N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.28, which mandates public bodies to specify wage rates in contracts. The Chancery Division's ruling in Male v. Pompton Lakes Borough Mun. Utilities Auth. established that contractors are liable for wage deficiencies even if wage rates are not included in the contract. However, the court is concerned about the accuracy of the agency's summary of wage deficiencies, emphasizing that employees are entitled to the prevailing wage specific to the locality where the work is performed, as per N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.26. The agency incorrectly applied Camden County's wage rate to work performed outside that county, necessitating a remand for correction. The court issues a partial judgment of $4,179.27, with an additional 10% administrative fee of $417.93, affirming the agency's ruling for work done in Camden County at specified locations. The Department of Labor is instructed to resolve a residual amount of $5,820.73 and any further administrative fees on remand. The court does not retain jurisdiction over the matter.