Monthly Archives: July 2015

Will Balcony Collapse Lead to New Contractor Reporting Requirements?

balcony

In the wake of last month’s tragic apartment balcony collapse in Berkeley that killed 6 and seriously injured 7 others, two Northern California state senators have introduced new legislation with the stated goal of improving “construction industry disclosure.”  Senate Bill 465 would require contractors to report to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) if and when they are convicted of a felony “or any other crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of a licensed contractor.”  The proposed law would also require that every licensed contractor report “any civil action settlement…resulting in a settlement worth $50,000 or more, or a binding arbitration…worth $25,000 or more, resulting from specified acts.”  Finally, the law would also require insurance carriers to report any payment of all or a portion of a civil action settlement or binding arbitration award against the contractor.

The bill, supported by the City of Berkeley and various public interest groups, has been touted as a public safety measure that would require the disclosure of criminal convictions and civil suits in cases of construction defects, fraud, negligence and incompetence.  The California Building Industry Association and other trade groups oppose the legislation because it is overbroad and fails to take into account the reality of doing business as a contractor in the State of California.  Moreover, opponents of SB 465 argue that the required disclosures are not good indicators of whether a contractor is a bad actor or whether a contractor’s license should be considered for revocation because, for example, contractors are often principally liable for others and settle claims even when they are not primarily or directly at fault.

SB 465 is available for viewing here and more information about SB 465 from the San Jose Mercury News can be viewed here.  We’ll be keeping a close eye on SB 465 as it progresses through the legislative process.

For more information about this topic please contact:

Christopher E. Ng, Esq.

Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP

1880 Century Park East 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

email: cng@gibbsgiden.com

The content contained herein is published online by Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP (“Gibbs Giden”) for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel.

Copyright 2015 Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP ©

Attorney Newsletter Advertisement

Using Apprentices on California Public Works Projects

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-pipefitter-image53488

New Case Clarifies Use of Apprentices on Public Works:  Use of Craft Labor Rather than Pipefitter Apprentices Is Appropriate On Water Projects When On-Site Journeymen Were Union Laborers.

A group of pipefitter apprentices alleged lost wages and training and violation of Labor Code Section 1777.5 against a prime contractor who, as signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with a laborers union, hired apprentice laborers rather than  apprentice pipefitters to perform process pipe work on dozens of water and sewage treatment systems in Northern California.  The trial court found that the term “craft or trade” in section 1777.5 refers to the journeyman’s trade or occupation, not the work processes in which they engage on any given day.  In the new case, Henson v. C Overaa & Co., the CaliforniaCourt of Appeal agreed with the trial court.  Although subdivision (b) provides that apprentices be employed only at the work of the craft or trade to which he or she is registered, the plain language of subdivisions (g) and (h) refers to employing apprentices in the same craft or trade as journeymen employed at the job site.  The plaintiffs did not dispute that the on-site journeymen laborers were qualified to perform the process pipe work.  Moreover, nothing in the DIR regulations limits a journeyman to performing work processes on which his apprenticeship program has been authorized to train.  The Court saw no harm in labor apprentices receiving training in processes that were not expressly listed in the laborer apprenticeship standards.  The Court reasoned that any other reading of the statute has the potential to place an unreasonable burden on contractors (e.g., choose between violating a collective bargining agreement of the statute).

Barbara R. Gadbois, Esq.
Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP
1880 Century Park East 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
email: bgadbois@gibbsgiden.com

For more information from Barbara R. Gadbois, Esq. visit:

 http://www.gibbsgiden.com/_blog/Construction_and_Public_Contracts

The content contained herein is published online by Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP (“Gibbs Giden”) for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel.

Copyright 2015 Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP ©

Attorney Newsletter Advertisement

Authorization for Hospital to Use Design Build

AB 1290 adds Section 32132.8 to the Health and Safety Code to authorize the Mayers Memorial Hospital District to use this design-build process when contracting for the construction of a building and improvements directly related to a hospital or health facility building.

Text of the bill can be found at  https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1290/id/1148199

For more information about this topic please contact:

Barbara R. Gadbois, Esq.
Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP
1880 Century Park East 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
email: bgadbois@gibbsgiden.com

The content contained herein is published online by Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP (“Gibbs Giden”) for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel.

Copyright 2015 Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP ©

Attorney Newsletter Advertisement

Using Apprentices on Public Works Projects

pipefitterMedium

New Case Clarifies Use of Apprentices on Public Works: Use of Craft Labor Rather than Pipefitter Apprentices Is Appropriate On Water Projects When On-Site Journeymen Were Union Laborers

A group of pipefitter apprentices alleged lost wages and training and violation of Labor Code Section 1777.5 against a prime contractor who, as signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with a laborers union, hired apprentice laborers rather than apprentice pipefitters to perform process pipe work on dozens of water and sewage treatment systems in Northern California. The trial court found that the term “craft or trade” in section 1777.5 refers to the journeyman’s trade or occupation, not the work processes in which they engage on any given day. The First Appellate division of the California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court. Although subdivision (b) provides that apprentices be employed only at the work of the craft or trade to which he or she is registered, the plain language of subdivisions (g) and (h) refers to employing apprentices in the same craft or trade as journeymen employed at the job site. The plaintiffs did not dispute that the on-site journeymen laborers were qualified to perform the process pipe work. Moreover, nothing in the DIR regulations limits a journeyman to performing work processes on which his apprenticeship program has been authorized to train. The Court saw no harm in labor apprentices receiving training in processes that were not expressly listed in the laborer apprenticeship standards. The Court reasoned that any other reading of the statute has the potential to place an unreasonable burden on contractors.

For more information about this topic please contact:

Barbara R. Gadbois, Esq.

Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP

1880 Century Park East 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

email: bgadbois@gibbsgiden.com

The content contained herein is published online by Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP (“Gibbs Giden”) for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel.

Copyright 2015 Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP ©

Attorney Newsletter Advertisement