Male v. Ernest Renda Contracting Co.
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- Associated Builders & Contractors v. Department of Consumer & Industry Services Director (Mich. Ct. App. 2005)
- Szabo v. NJ State Firemen's Ass'n (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988)
- Fmba v. N. Hudson Reg. Fire & Rescue (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001)
- Department of Labor v. Titan Construction Co. (N.J. 1985)
- Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Caffiero (N.J. 1981)
- General Electric Co. v. New York State Department of Labor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Constr. Indus. of Mass. v. COMMR. OF LABOR & INDUS. (Mass. 1989)
- Construction Industries v. Commissioner of Labor & Industries (Mass. 1989)
- Berkley Condo Ass'n v. Berkley Condo. Residences (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1982)
- West Ottawa Public Schools v. Director, Department of Labor (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
- Central Constr. Co. v. Horn (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1981)
- Industrial Commission v. C & D Pipeline, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)
- DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRY v. Union Paving & Constr. Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
- Urban Farms, Inc. v. Township of Wayne (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
- Cold Indian Springs Corp. v. Tp. of Ocean (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1977)
- Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. Glaser (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
- Toms River Affiliates v. DEPT., ENVIRON. PROTEC. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
- Cipparulo v. David Friedland Painting Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
- Lehrhaupt v. Flynn (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
- Jennings v. Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District Committee (R.I. 1976)
- State v. Bryan (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
We affirm tbe judgment of the Appellate
Division for substantially the reasons set forth in its opinion reported at 122 N. J. Super. 526 (1973), but add the following comments.
The statute in question, N. J. S. A. 34:11-56.25 et seq., is not a true prevailing wage statute since non-union wages are not used in determining the wage rate. Only the wages fixed in collective bargaining agreements in the locality for the particular craft or trade are used. The result is that the parties who negotiate the collective bargaining agreements also establish the statutory wage rate for public works in the locality. Although this must be viewed as some form of delegation of legislative power to private parties, such delegation is not per se unconstitutional. The test is whether the particular delegation is reasonable under the circumstances considering the purpose and aim of the statute. See note, “The State Courts and Delegation of Public Authority to Private Groups,” 67 Harv. L. Rev. 1398 (1954); Ind. Elec. Assn. of N. J. v. N. J. Bd. of Exam., 54 N. J. 466 (1969); Group Health Insurance of N. J. v. Howell, 40 N. J. 436 (1963) and 43 N. J. 104 (1964); State v. Hotel Bar Foods. 18 N. J. 115 (1955).
The statute is entitled to the presumption of constitutionality. While it is argued that the delegation herein also lacks safeguards and creates a danger of arbitrary, self-motivated action by the private parties involved, detrimental to the public good, no such action or result has been shown. As the Appellate Division noted in its opinion, 122 N. J. Super, at p. 535, the parties negotiating the collective bargaining agreements' are competing groups with opposing *202 economic positions so that the agreements reached represent a balancing of interests. Considering the purpose and aim of the statute, it is clear that tire delegation here involved meets the requirements of due process.
It is not the judicial function to pass upon the wisdom of the particular means established by the Legislature to fix a prevailing wage rate for public works. As long as due process is satisfied, the legislative formula must be upheld.
Affirmed.
For affirmance — Acting Chief Justice Jacobs, Justices Hall, Sullivan, Pashman and Clifford and Judges Con-ford and Collester—7.
For reversal — None.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.