Niles v. Huntington Controls, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-100-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 16-P-229 Appeals Court ADRIAN NILES vs. HUNTINGTON CONTROLS, INC., & another.[1] No. 16-P-229. Norfolk. January 12, 2017. – July 31, 2017. Present: Kafker, C.J., Hanlon, & Agnes, JJ. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Labor, Public works, Wages. Public Works, Wage determination. Administrative Law, Wage administration. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 22, 2013. Motions for summary judgment were heard by Thomas A. Connors, J. Joseph L. Sulman for the plaintiff. Stephen P. Kolberg for the defendants. AGNES, J. The Massachusetts prevailing wage law, G. L. c. 149, §§ 26-27 (prevailing wage law), is designed “to achieve parity between the wages of workers engaged in public construction projects and workers in the rest of the construction industry.” Mullally v. Waste Mgmt. of Mass., Inc., 452 Mass. 526, 532 (2008). Under this law, the “rate per hour of the wages” paid to “mechanics and apprentices, teamsters, chauffeurs and laborers in the construction of public works” may not be less than “the rate or rates of wages” determined by the commissioner of the Department of Labor Standards (department). G. L. c. 149, § 26, as amended by St. 1967, c. 296, § 3. The commissioner determines the minimum rate by preparing a classification of “the jobs usually performed on various types of public works” by “mechanics and apprentices, teamsters, chauffeurs and laborers” employed in such construction. G. L. c. 149, § 27, as amended by St. 1967, c. 296, § 4.[2] The commissioner is authorized to “revise such classification from time to time, as he may deem advisable.” G. L. c. 149, § 27, as inserted by St. 1935, c. 461, § 27. In the present case, Adrian Niles filed a four-count complaint in the Superior Court alleging a violation of the prevailing wage law (count one), breach of contract (count two), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count three), and unjust enrichment (count four). The judge allowed a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Huntington Controls, Inc., and its president, Paul Milano (collectively, Huntington), on all four counts and denied Niles’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under count one. Niles appealed. The sole question presented is whether the judge was correct in ruling that Huntington did not violate the prevailing wage law because none of the […]