SHERBA BROS., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES A. CAMPBELL, CHARLES ANTHONY FARINA AND ROBERT B. TURNER, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sherba Bros., Inc., a construction subcontractor, challenged an agency order requiring it to pay prevailing wages to three employees on a public works project at Florida International University. The court affirmed the Department of Labor's determination that the employees were underpaid under Florida's Prevailing Wage Law, rejecting the contractor's waiver defense and clarifying the proper payment procedure.
The court held that waiver is not a valid defense to the prevailing wage requirement because the Legislature mandated minimum wages on public works as a matter of public policy, and that the evidence supported the Department's determination that the employees were entitled to the higher prevailing wage rates for their respective categories.
[1] The Prevailing Wage Law applies to public work projects exceeding a specified value and requires payment of minimum wages commensurate with the prevailing rate in the are…
[2] The Prevailing Wage Law is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of ensuring minimum wages are paid on public work projects.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Legislature determined it to be the policy of the State to require the minimum wages be paid on public work projects commensurate with the prevailing rate of wages in the area in which the work is being performed. To effectuate its purpose the Act is to be liberally construed.”
Establishes the legislative mandate and policy underlying the Prevailing Wage Law requiring liberal construction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSherba Bros. was the electrical, plumbing, and air-conditioning subcontractor on a state project at FIU's Interama Campus in Dade County. Three employ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Estoppel Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
Petitioner seeks review of a final agency order of the Division of Labor of the Florida Department of Commerce, which ordered petitioner to pay respondents certain sums found to be due under the prevailing wage rate on public work projects in Dade County.
Petitioner was the electrical, plumbing and air-conditioning sub-contractor for the State Project on the Florida International University Interama Campus in Dade County. Since the project exceeded $5000 in value, the Prevailing Wage Law applied requiring that certain minimum wages be paid to all laborers, mechanics and apprentices on the job.1
Respondent Campbell was employed by petitioner as a “helper,” Farina as a “first class helper” and Turner as a “journeyman electrician” and later was given responsibility as a foreman. Each of the respondents was paid less per hour than was required by the prevailing schedule of wages applicable to the specified category of activity most nearly describing the respondent’s work. Thus, the work performed by Campbell and Farina was similar to work done by laborers. Turner’s work was that of an electrician and a foreman.
Each of the respondents learned he was being underpaid prior to filing his claim, yet all continued for a time to accept the wages paid by petitioner. Petitioner contends they thus waived the statutory requirement. Secondly, petitioner argues that there is no substantial competent evidence to support the finding that respondents’ work fell into the categories determined by the agency.
We have reviewed the record presented and find adequate support for the conclusion of the Department, and we reject the waiver argument. The Legislature determined it to be the policy of the State to require the minimum wages be paid on public work projects commensurate with the prevailing rate of wages in the area in which the work is being performed. To effectuate its purpose the Act is to be liberally construed.2 Acceptance of petitioner’s contention would subvert the purpose of the Act simply by labeling job descriptions differently than as specified in the prevailing wage schedule. The evidence here supports a determination that Campbell and Farina were entitled to laborers’ wages and that Turner was entitled to an electrician-foreman’s wages.
Since the Legislature has mandated that minimum wages shall be paid on public works the contractor cannot assert waiver as a defense to defeat this legislative policy. “The doctrines of estoppel and waiver do not in general apply in transactions that are forbidden by statute or that are contrary to public policy.” Montsdoca v. The Highlands Bank & Trust Company, 85 Fla. 158, 95 So. 666 (1923). Accordingly, the decision requiring payment of additional wages to respondents is in our judgment supported by the record.
Section 215.19, Florida Statutes (1975), provides in pertinent part that upon failure of a contractor to pay the prevailing wages an aggrieved employee can make such fact known to the contracting authority and the authority shall withhold an amount equal to the claim until final determination thereof. This procedure was followed in this case and the contracting authority withheld from petitioner the amount of respondents’ claims. The statute also provides that upon settlement of the dispute or determination of the matter by the Division of Labor the contracting authority shall pay the amount due to the complaining employee and pay the balance to the contractor. Here the order under review directs the petitioner to pay the entire sum found due to respondents. Respondents candidly admit that portion of the order should be modified.
Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted and the order under review is modified so as to direct the contracting authority to pay to the respondents out of the petitioner’s funds withheld by the contracting authority the sums found to be due respondents and pay the balance of any such funds to petitioners.
CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur. . Section 215.19, Florida Statutes (1975).
. Section 215.83, Florida Statutes (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ee that estoppel and waiver are viable defenses to this type, of action. The doctrines of estoppel and waiver do not in general apply to transactions that are forbidden by statute or are contrary to the public policy. Sherba Bros., Inc. v. Campbell, 361 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Confederation Life Association v. Conte, 254 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Montsdoca v. Highlands Bank and Trust Co., 95 So. 666 (Fla.1923). Moreover, an omission suff…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Gayer, 388 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…Trust Co., 85 Fla. 158, 163, 95 So. 666, 668 (1923), that: “[t]he doctrines of estoppel and waiver do not in general apply in transactions that are forbidden by statute or that are contrary to public policy.” Accord, Sherba Bros., Inc. v. Campbell, 361 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); State ex rel. Schwartz v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Hollywood Beach Hotel Company allows one to invoke the doctrine of estoppel against a municipality in the same manner as it applies to private parties…
-
R.I. Hosp. Tr. Bank v. Coastal Winds S., Inc., 528 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…t the defense of estoppel should not be used to bar an attack on transactions contrary to public policy. See Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA [*1259] 1982), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1983). See also Sherba Bros. v. Campbell, 361 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Wash Bowl Vending Co. v. No. 3 Condominium Association, Village Green, Inc., 485 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1986). However, we conclude that the trial court did err in reducing the term of the…
Authorities Cited
- Montsdoca v. The Highlands Bank & Tr. Co., 85 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1923)