City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Georgia, Inc.
Decision Date | 07 February 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 32906,32906 |
Citation | 240 Ga. 655,242 S.E.2d 139 |
Parties | , 23 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 798, 83 Lab.Cas. P 55,114 CITY OF ATLANTA v. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS OF GEORGIA, INC., et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Ferrin Y. Mathews, Isabel Gates Webster, Mary Carole Cooney, Atlanta, for appellant.
L. Spencer Gandy, Jr., John Walton Henderson, Jr., Michael C. Fowler, Atlanta, for appellees.
The question which this case presents concerns the constitutionality of an ordinance of the City of Atlanta (Section 31-41.11 Section 31.47(a), Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlanta) requiring workers on construction projects in excess of $10,000, which are funded by the city, to be paid a minimum wage which corresponds to the prevailing wage scale prescribed by the federal Davis-Bacon Act. 40 U.S.C. § 276a et seq. The State of Georgia has established a minimum wage law requiring every employer, with certain exemptions not applicable here, to pay all covered employees a minimum wage which shall not be less than $1.25 per hour. Code Ann. § 54-1202 (Ga. L.1970, p. 153). The Fulton Superior Court rendered a declaratory judgment that the city ordinance was in violation of Art. I., Sec. IV, Par. I of the State Constitution of 1945, (Code Ann. § 2-401; § 2-207 under the Constitution of 1976), which declares that no special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Georgia, Inc., 143 Ga.App. 115, 237 S.E.2d 601 (1977). We brought this case up on a writ of certiorari, and we reverse.
We really face two questions in this appeal: the specific question concerning the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance under attack and a broader question concerning the construction of the state constitutional provision under which it was struck down. Had Hamlet been the writer of this opinion, he might have framed this latter issue for decision thusly: Conflict or Preemption? That is the question. In other words, the question is whether that constitutional provision merely prohibits conflicts between general and special laws or whether it prohibits altogether the enactment of a special law when there is preemption by the state in that area of regulatory activity. The prior cases in this area are irreconcilable, and if there is any common analytical thread running through them which can be extracted therefrom and used as the basis for rendering a decision in a subsequent case, it escapes this reader's detection. See, e. g., City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618, 19 S.E.2d 508 (1942) and cits. The latest, and therefore controlling, pronouncement on this point is found in Powell v. Bd. of Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Gwinnett County, 234 Ga. 183, 214 S.E.2d 905 (1975), which held that a local law prohibiting issuance of a beer and wine license to a business within 1,700 feet from a school was not rendered unconstitutional because of the existence of a state law making it illegal for any person to sell beer or wine within 100 yards of any school. This court stated, Id., p. 185, 214 S.E.2d p. 907.
Therefore, the question under Powell is whether there is a genuine conflict between the special and general law, and the reasoning employed in that case mandates the conclusion that there is no unconstitutional conflict in this case between the state minimum wage law and the city ordinance. The local minimum wage law does not detract from or hinder the operation of the state law, but rather it augments and strengthens it.
Wilson v. City of Atlanta, 164 Ga. 560, 139 S.E. 148, which is in direct conflict with our holding today, is expressly overruled. Justice Hines, dissenting in the Wilson case, 164 Ga. at p. 564, 139 S.E. at p. 150, expressed certain sentiments which we repeat here:
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except HILL, J., who concurs specially, and JORDAN and BOWLES, JJ., who dissent.
In my view, in the absence of a general law prescribing municipal contracting requirements, a municipality is free to impose conditions upon those who would contract with it without violating the special law prohibition of Code Ann. § 2-207.
The City of Atlanta ordinance under attack in this case was declared to be unconstitutional by the trial judge and by the Court of Appeals of this State. Now a majority of this court has voted to reverse the Court of Appeals; thus holding that the ordinance in question meets constitutional muster. We are confined to the narrow question on which we granted certiorari, that being whether or not the ordinance in question violates Article I, Section IV, Paragraph I (Code Ann. § 2-401) of the 1945 Georgia Constitution. That single issue will be addressed in this dissent, although the ordinance in question may be otherwise constitutionally infirm.
There are three paragraphs of the ordinance I deem necessary to quote here, namely:
Thus, by ordinance, wages paid on any contract or subcontract performed for the City of Atlanta where the amount involved exceeds $10,000 shall meet the minimums of the Federal Davis-Bacon Act. The ordinance is overly broad, in my opinion, and is in direct conflict with the minimum wage law enacted by the legislature of this State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ferrero v. Associated Materials Inc.
...down only when the act "plainly and palpably violates some provision of the ... State constitution." City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders, 240 Ga. 655, 242 S.E.2d 139, 141 (1978). It does not appear that the statute is in clear conflict with Art. 3, Sec. 6, p 5. There may be a conflict, b......
-
City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 80-7514
...not be set aside unless it "plainly and palpably" conflicts with a constitutional provision. City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., 240 Ga. 655, 657, 242 S.E.2d 139 (1978). There is no clear conflict between the Georgia constitution and the MARTA Act amendment challenge......
-
Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp.
...6. See Ga. Const. of 1945, § 2-401; Ga. Const. of 1976, art. I, sec. II, para. VII. 7. See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 656, 242 S.E.2d 139 (1978) (prior cases in this area are irreconcilable); U86-22, 1986 Op. Att'y Gen. 184, 185 ("Prior cases construi......
- In re A.B., 19-0718
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...Special?, 27 Mercer L. Rev. 1167 (1976). In 1978, however, in its decision of City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 242 S.E.2d 139 (1978), the court confessed the error of its former ways and announced as its controlling test for the future the test of "genuine ......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...in R. Perry Sentell, Jr., Studies In Georgia Statutory Law 71 (1997). 224. City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors Inc., 240 Ga. 655, 656-57, 242 S.E.2d 139, 141 (1978). For treatment of this case in historical context, see R. Perry Sentell, Jr., Unlawful Special Laws: A Postsc......