Marr v. ABM Carpet Service, Inc.
Decision Date | 29 December 1995 |
Citation | 669 A.2d 864,286 N.J.Super. 500 |
Parties | David MARR, Plaintiff, v. ABM CARPET SERVICE, INC., Defendant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
David Marr appearing pro se.
Gilbert Brooks, Cherry Hill, for defendant ABM Carpet Service, Inc. (Kozlov, Seaton, Romanini & Brooks, P.C., attorneys).
On September 29, 1994, the Wage Collection Section of the New Jersey Department of Labor awarded David Marr a default judgment for the full jurisdictional amount of $10,000 against his former employer, ABM Carpet Service, Inc., for failing to pay him a prevailing wage pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.40 and 34:11-58. The Prevailing Wage Act requires employers to pay their workers union wages when performing construction-type work for public bodies. The Department based its award on an "Audit Summary" prepared by the agency showing that David Marr was entitled to $14,737.25 for wage deficiencies from January 3, 1991, to October 15, 1992. At the agency hearing, David Marr testified that he was employed by ABM Carpet Service, Inc. from September 1988 through October 1992, and worked as a non-union carpet installer on various public works for the State of New Jersey. The agency, in setting his prevailing wage rate, classified David as a journeyman carpenter. See N.J.A.C. 12:60-3.2(a)(6) ( ). The agency does not recognize a distinct classification for carpet installers. On December 5, 1994, the employer filed an appeal. The appeal was tried June 8, 1995, with this court reserving decision.
ABM Carpet Service, Inc. appeals pursuant to the Wage Collection Statute, which states that "[f]rom any judgment which may be obtained in the wage collection division ... either party may ... appeal to the Superior Court." N.J.S.A. 34:11-63. An initial question is the scope of judicial review. Ordinarily, the reviewing court must decide whether the agency abused its discretion. "Though sometimes phrased in terms of a search for 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable' action ... the judicial role is restricted to three inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violated the enabling act's express or implied legislative policies, (2) whether there was insubstantial evidence in the record to support the findings on which the agency based its actions, and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made after weighing the relative factors." Williams v. Department of Human Services, 116 N.J. 102, 108, 561 A.2d 244 (1989) (Williams I ) (citation omitted). The "abuse of discretion" test originates in the New Jersey Constitution, which requires courts to offer citizens relief from agency action inconsistent with the agency's legislative mandate. Id. See N.J. Const. art. VI, § 5, p 4 ( ). Defendant seeks de novo review, however.
"A de novo hearing provides a reviewing court with the opportunity to consider the matter 'anew, afresh [and] for a second time,' " permitting the court to make "its own findings of fact." In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 578, 569 A.2d 807 (1990) ( ). "Although a court conducting a de novo review must give due deference to the conclusions drawn by the original tribunal regarding credibility, those initial findings are not controlling." Id. at 579, 569 A.2d 807. Two aspects of the Wage Collection Statute convince this court that the scope of judicial review over agency factfinding is de novo. First, the statute anticipates a broad scope of review by allowing the parties to introduce new evidence on appeal. See N.J.S.A. 34:11-65 ( ). Second, the statutory design focuses primarily on expediting the resolution of wage collection disputes, as opposed to engineering due deference for factfinding by an expert administrative body. See Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513, 606 A.2d 336 (1992) ( ). The statute expedites dispute resolution by limiting the agency to cases under $10,000, and by subjecting the parties to summary review. See N.J.S.A. 34:11-58 (establishing $10,000 limit); N.J.S.A. 34:11-59 ( ). But, the statute casts a weak snare for accumulated expertise by stretching the jurisdictional net over any claims for wages or benefits due an employee. N.J.S.A. 34:11-57 to -58.
On reviewing the record de novo in light of the new evidence admitted by both parties at trial, this court finds that defendant ABM Carpet Service, Inc. failed to pay plaintiff, David Marr, the prevailing wage of a journeyman carpenter for carpet installation performed on public works between January 3, 1991, and October 15, 1992.
The court rejects defendant's contention that the agency erred in classifying a carpet installer as a carpenter. The Prevailing Wage Act authorizes the agency to promulgate regulations delineating crafts and trades subject to the Act. See N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.43 ( ). "Generally, [the courts] give substantial deference to the interpretation an agency gives to a statute that the agency is charged with enforcing." Smith v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 108 N.J. 19, 25, 527 A.2d 843 (1987). The Department of Labor's decision to classify carpet installers as carpenters for purposes of assigning a prevailing wage rate is presumed reasonable, and such adjudicatory rulemaking is not subject to de novo review. See N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.30 ( ); In re Amendment of N.J.A.C. 8:31B-3.31, 119 N.J. 531, 544, 575 A.2d 481 (1990) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
HMH Hosps. Corp. v. Warren
... ... on an employee's hours worked, years of service, and job ... classification. The policy also provided for payment of ... 34:11-4.7; Winslow v. Corp. Express, ... Inc. , 364 N.J.Super. 128, 136 (App. Div. 2003)) ... See Marr v. ABM Carpet Service, Inc. , 286 N.J.Super ... 500, 504 (Law Div ... ...
- State v. Damon
-
Dental Care of Stratford v. Harmon
...percent of $10,350, or $3,622.50. A trial court reviews wage collection referee decisions de novo. See Marr v. ABM Carpet Serv., Inc., 286 N.J. Super. 500, 504 (Law Div. 1995); see also N.J.S.A. 34:11-65 (providing that "[u]pon the trial of any appeal either party may produce any witness no......
-
Stratus Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Paciello, DOCKET NO. A-3694-13T4
...may appeal the administrative decision to the Superior Court, which may consider de novo the wage dispute. Marr v. ABM Carpet Serv., Inc., 286 N.J. Super. 500, 504-05 (Law Div. 1995); see also N.J.S.A. 34:11-63. In its de novo consideration, the trial court may consider the testimony of wit......