Ewen v. Thompson-Starrett Co.

The Thompson-Starrett Company has a contract with the city of New York for the erection of the new municipal building. In this contract the Thompson-Starrett Company agreed with the city to comply with all the terms and provisions of the labor law (Consol. Laws, c. 31); the eight hour and prevailing rate of wage clauses being set forth in full in the contract. That portion of the contract which provided for the furnishing of the stone work was'sublet to the Mt. Waldo Granite Works, which is doing a large part of this work at its place 'of business in Maine. Eor the purposes of this motion, the Mt. Waldo Granite Company stands in the same position as the Thompson-Starrett Company, and the work done by the former cannot be considered as a mere purchase of materials in the state of Maine, but is the doing of part of the work contemplated by the contract out of the state.

The question presented upon this motion is simply this: Can a contractor under the labor law agreeing with the city for municipal work do a large part of the work out of the state, and, if he does, must he pay to the workmen on this out of state work the rate of wages prevailing in the city? The facts in this case are that the cutting, trimming, and dressing of the stone pursuant to the plans and specifications is done in Maine at $3 per day per workman; the prevailing rate in New York City where the municipal building is in process of erection being $4.50 per day. It is conceded that for all work done within the state of New York the prevailing rate of wages has been and is being paid. Can a contractor, therefore, do part of the work out of the state without paying the out of state workmen the rate of wages prevailing in New York state? The plaintiff claims that he cannot and seeks by this motion an injunction under section 4 of article 2 of the labor law preventing payment of money earned under the contract. The defendants claim that there has been no violation of the contract or of the labor law.

(1) There is nothing in the contract of the Thompson-Starrett Company with the city of New York that requires the cutting, dressing, and trimming of stone to be done within the state of New York. The details regarding the doing of this work are very full and complete, even providing in section 179 of the contract that “all carving of. granite work shall be hand work done * * * under the direction of a master carver who shall have had at least five years experience as such,” etc., but I can find among the numerous details no restriction as to the place of work.

(2) There is nothing in the labor law (chapter 36 of the Laws of 1909) which requires any work or this work of cutting, trimming, and dressing stone to be done at or near the place of construction, or within the state of New York. Section 14 of chapter 415 of' the Laws

1. There is nothing in the contract or in the labor law which states so specifically.

2. Was section 3 of article 2 of the labor law intended to apply to any. other workmen than those working within the state of New York? The acts of a state legislature can have no extraterritorial effect, and, of course, should not be presumed to apply to any other conditions than exist within the state. Then, again, it is specifically stated in section 3 that the eight-hour provision only applies to employés in this state, and, as the prevailing rate of wage clauses immediately follow in the same section, it is the natural conclusion that these also apply only to workmen within the state. The wording of section 3 indicates that it only applies to the work done in the state.

3. Also, we might expect that, if the labor law of New York state is to be given the interpretation demanded by the plaintiff, we would find in other states a like regulation. The labor legislation throughout the country might reasonably be presumed to be uniform. This plaintiff is the financial secretary of the New York branch of the Granite Cutters’ International Association of America. The association, I take it, is interested in the welfare of the granite cutters in every state of the Union, and seeks uniform legislation where like conditions prevail. The labor laws, like the employer’s liability acts, have been a matter of gradual growth in the various states, and have been reasonably uniform in their aims and purposes. While, therefore, no guide for the interpretation of the New York statute, it may be of some help in determining the purpose and intent of the statute to refer to the labor law of Massachusetts (Laws 1907, c. 269, found in the Supplement to the Revised Laws of the Commonwealth of Mass, p. 828), which reads:

‘'Every contract, excluding contracts for the purchase of materials or supplies, to which the commonwealth, or of any county therein, * * * is a party, which may involve the employment of laborers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no laborer, workman or mechanic working within this commonwealth in the employ of the contractor, subcontractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be requested or required to work more than eight hours in one calendar day, and every such contract which does not contain this stipulation shall be null and void.”

I

t will be noted that this law specifically states that it only refers to workmen within the state. Such is the policy of Massachusetts. Such clearly to my mind is the meaning of thé labor law of New York.

For the reasons above stated, the motion for injunction herein is denied.