Lighthouse Masonry, Inc., et al. v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-204-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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     SJC‑11318     LIGHTHOUSE MASONRY, INC., & another[1]  vs.  DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS & another.[2]     Suffolk.     September 9, 2013.  ‑  December 31, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.     Labor, Public works, Wages.  Public Works, Wage determination.  Attorney General.  Division of Administrative Law Appeals.  Administrative Law, Decision.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 26, 2008.   The case was heard by Mitchell H. Kaplan, J., on motions for summary judgment.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Harvey B. Heafitz (Scott K. Semple with him) for the plaintiffs. Richard C. Heidlage, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Division of Administrative Law Appeals. Karla E. Zarbo, Assistant Attorney General (Bruce Trager, Assistant Attorney General, with her) for the Attorney General. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Christopher C. Whitney & Scott K. Pomeroy for Associated Builders & Contractors, Massachusetts Chapter.   Donald J. Siegel & James A.W. Shaw for Massachusetts Building Trades Council. Patricia A. DeAngelis, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Department of Labor Standards.     BOTSFORD, J.  This case primarily concerns the process governing appeals from civil citations issued by the Attorney General for alleged violations of the Commonwealth’s prevailing wage law, G. L. c. 149, §§ 26-27H.  The plaintiffs, Lighthouse Masonry, Inc., and its president, Peter Alves (collectively, Lighthouse), appeal from a Superior Court judgment that affirmed a prevailing wage law decision of a Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) hearing officer under G. L. c. 149, § 27C (b) (4) (§ 27C [b] [4]).  We consider here two interrelated questions about the DALA administrative hearing process directly raised in Lighthouse’s appeal:  whether the chief administrative magistrate of DALA has authority to review and approve a proposed decision of a DALA hearing officer in a § 27C (b) (4) appeal before the final decision is issued; and if so, whether, when a hearing officer of DALA resigns after drafting a decision on an appeal under § 27C (b) (4) but before the issuance of a final decision, another DALA hearing officer may take over responsibility for deciding the appeal.  We also consider Lighthouse’s challenge on substantive grounds to the affirmance of one of the civil citations issued against it by the Attorney General.  We leave for resolution […]

Read more...