Printer-friendly version
By Miriam Raftery
September 5, 2011 (San Diego) -- California’s Supreme Court has declined to review an appeals court decision that upheld the Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) entered into by the San Diego Unified School District in 2009.
The PSA required that for major construction projects, the District would hire contractors that hire local union workers to assure that living wages are paid while assuring quality workmanships.The decision marks a win for labor groups as well as for the District.
The Associated General Contractors (AGC) challenged provisions in the PLA that ensure the creation of apprenticeship job opportunities for local residents.
“This puts the final nail in the coffin of the Associated General Contractors (AGC) novel arguments on being discriminated, and helps clear the pipeline for creating local jobs on school construction,” said Tom Lemmon with the San Diego County Building & Constructions Trades Councils, AFL-CIO.
Following up on their repeated threats to stop the local hire agreement, AGC had sued the San Diego Unified District. In trial court, Judge Judith Hayes' ruling on December 11, 2009 found that the PSA's provisions "are legal and do not violate state law," and that the PSA "does not discriminate against non-union contractors."
The case, Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter v. San Diego Unified School District, was appealed by the AGC. AGC appealed, and a three-judge California 4th District appeals court also rejected the AGC's arguments in May 2011, citing evidence that union joint-labor management apprenticeships were of superior quality:
Importantly, the statutes expressly permit approved apprenticeship programs to provide education and training which exceed the minimum standards required by the department. Because the governing statutes expressly contemplate differences among apprenticeship programs, the court rejected AGC’s contention that the district invaded the department’s regulatory power by making an agreement which favors one qualified program over another.
“The denial of the AGC by the Supreme Court makes this their third consecutive defeat, and lays to rest their novel legal arguments, their coerced waste of taxpayer dollars on legal bills, in defending a program that creates local jobs,” Lemmon concluded.
Recent comments