Manson v. Wheelabrator Spokane, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-04-075-FVS.,CV-04-075-FVS. |
| Citation | 357 F.Supp.2d 1256 |
| Parties | Joseph L. MANSON and Christine Manson, husband and wife, Plaintiff, v. WHEELABRATOR SPOKANE, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
Paul James Burns, Paul J. Burns PS, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff.
Karen F. Jones, Kristen L. Kirmer, Riddell Williams PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, Ct. Rec. 7, and Defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, Ct. Rec. 16. The Court heard oral argument in this matter on November 1, 2004. Plaintiff was represented by Paul Burns. Defendant was represented by Karen Jones.
The defendant, Wheelabrator Spokane, Inc., owned by Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, oversees the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a waste-to-energy facility in Spokane, Washington, known as the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal Project ("SWDP"). The City of Spokane ("City") owns SWDP and Defendant operates it in accordance with the Amended Operation and Maintenance Contract ("O & M Contract"), entered into between the defendant and the City on August 28, 1989. The O & M Contract has a term of twenty years.
Under the O & M Contract the City is obligated to pay Defendant a flat fee per ton of solid waste that is processed at the SWDP. The fee is the City's sole ordinary financial contribution to the operation and maintenance of the SWDP. The fee may vary from year to year in accordance with a contractually agreed formula, but is otherwise fixed; the fee does not vary with the SWDP's maintenance or operating costs. Financed solely by the City, Defendant operates the SWDP independently, using its own employees, services, equipment and supplies. Under the O & M Contract, Defendant, at its sole cost and expense, is responsible for regularly maintaining the SWDP in a fully functioning condition, including performing maintenance, implementing necessary repairs, and purchasing equipment or parts necessary to meet the performance standards set forth in the O & M Contract. Defendant performs some of this work on an ongoing basis and some during an annual maintenance shutdown period ("AMS"). Maintenance work performed during the scheduled shutdown periods is usually done by specialized contractors with whom Defendant separately contracts for that purpose.
The plaintiff, Joseph L. Manson, has been employed by Defendant at the SWDP as a mechanic since December 1998, and lead mechanic since April 2001. Plaintiff is responsible for the ordinary, regularly scheduled maintenance required to service, check and otherwise keep all of the equipment in good working order. As lead mechanic, Plaintiff is also responsible for conducting weekly safety meetings with mechanics, as well as training and directing other mechanics. Plaintiff is not responsible for the maintenance work performed during the AMS.
Defendant is a non-union employer and pays Plaintiff an hourly wage. Since February 2001, Plaintiff has been paid at least $21.85 per hour. Typically, Plaintiff works from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plaintiff receives a 30-minute meal period each day. Until April 2004, Plaintiff was required to keep a pager/radio on at all times during his work day, including his meal period. Although he was required to wear a radio, Plaintiff was allowed to use his 30-minute meal period for his own personal use and could leave the SWDP site if he obtained permission. Plaintiff was not paid for his meal periods. However, if Plaintiff was required to return to work prior to the end of his meal period, Defendant's policy, until April 2004, stated that another meal period would be provided or the meal period would be compensated.
Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, claiming he is entitled to be paid prevailing wages under RCW 39.12.020 for his work performed at the SWDP. Plaintiff further claims he is entitled to be compensated for all unpaid meal periods between February 3, 2001 and April 2004. Finally, Plaintiff claims Defendant is liable for double damages under RCW 49.52.070 for both his unpaid prevailing wages and unpaid meal periods. Plaintiff now seeks an order of partial summary judgment on these issues. Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiff's prevailing wage claim.
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). "A material issue of fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth." S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir.1982). Inferences drawn from facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but the non-moving party must do more than show that there is some "metaphysical doubt" as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 572, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986). The non-moving party cannot rely on conclusory allegations alone to create an issue of material fact. Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir.1993). There is no issue for trial "unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A mere "scintilla of evidence" in support of the non-moving party's position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment; "there must be sufficient evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find for the non-movant." Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512.
Plaintiff claims that as a matter of law he is entitled to be paid "prevailing wages" for his work performed at the SWDP because it constitutes "public work". RCW 39.12.020 requires that prevailing wages be paid to laborers, workers, and mechanics for public works. The statute provides:
The hourly wages to be paid to laborers, workers, or mechanics, upon all public works and under all public building service maintenance contracts of the State or any county, municipality or political subdivision created by its laws, shall be not less than the prevailing rate of wage for an hour's work in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the State where such labor is performed.
The term public works includes
all work, construction, alteration, repair or improvement other than ordinary maintenance, executed at the cost of the State or of any municipality, or which is by law a lien or charge on any property therein. All public works, including maintenance when performed by contract, shall comply with the provisions of RCW 39.12.020.
RCW 39.04.010 (emphasis added).
In support of his argument that the work he performed at the SWDP constitutes public work for which he is entitled to be paid a prevailing wage, the Plaintiff cites City of Spokane v. Department of Labor & Industries, 100 Wash.App. 805, 998 P.2d 913 (2000). In City of Spokane, Defendant and the City litigated the issue of whether the work performed at the SWDP during the annual maintenance shutdown period ("AMS") constituted "public work" within the meaning of the statute. Under RCW 39.04.010, for work to constitute public work it must either (1) be executed at the cost of the state or municipality; or (2) give rise to a lien or charge on any property within the SWDP. City of Spokane, 100 Wash.App. at 811-812, 998 P.2d 913. The Court of Appeals held that the work performed at the SWDP during the AMS is public work because it is executed at the cost of the City: SWDP is "owned by the City, paid for with public funds, and operates to benefit the public." Id.
After concluding that the work performed during the AMS constitutes public work, the Court of Appeals addressed whether such work was subject to the prevailing wage requirements of RCW 39.12.020. Prevailing wages must be paid for public works unless the work falls within the statutory exception for "ordinary maintenance". See RCW 39.04.010. The Court of Appeals held that the workers who performed maintenance work during the AMS must be paid prevailing wages because such work performed by private laborers under contract with Defendant did not constitute "ordinary maintenance". Id. at 820, 998 P.2d 913. While the Court of Appeals addressed the AMS work, it did not directly address the issue presently before the Court; whether ordinary maintenance work performed by Defendant's regular employees (i.e.Plaintiff) is also subject to the statutory prevailing wage requirement.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's work constitutes "ordinary maintenance" and is therefore not public work for purposes of requiring prevailing wages. Plaintiff argues that to the extent his work involves maintenance, it is maintenance performed by contract, which is subject to the prevailing wage requirement. Whether the prevailing wage requirements of RCW 39.12.020 and 39.04.010 apply to Plaintiff's work at the SWDP is a legal question. City of Spokane, 100 Wash.App. at 810, 998 P.2d 913.
Defendant argues that the maintenance work performed by Plaintiff falls squarely within the language of WAC 296-127-010(7)(a)(iv), which excludes ordinary maintenance from prevailing wage requirements:
Ordinary maintenance which is defined as work not performed by contract and that is performed on a regularly scheduled basis (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, seasonally, semiannually, but not less...
To continue reading
Request your trial