CIVIL ACTION
O’HARA, Judge.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant underpaid him during 1977 and 1978, when plaintiff worked as an electrician on jobs which defendant had contracted to perform for the State of Delaware. Plaintiff claims the failure of defendant to register plaintiff in a bona fide apprenticeship program entitled him to be paid the higher wages of a journeyman. Defendant has moved for summary judgment; plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment.
Defendant, admitting it employed plaintiff as alleged, and did not register him as an apprentice, bases its motion upon several grounds: 1) defendant was not required to register plaintiff as an apprentice pursuant to 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 and 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2; 2) defendant has been released from any claim for unpaid wages; 3) 10
Del.C.
§ 8111 bars any claim for wages accruing prior to April 10, 1978; and 4) plaintiff lacks standing to bring an action under 29
Del.C.
§ 6912.
Plaintiff premises his motion upon the grounds that 1) 29
Del.C.
§ 6912, and regulations promulgated thereunder, mandate the registration of plaintiff in a bona fide apprenticeship program; 2) the action was filed within the statutory limitation period set forth in 10
Del.C.
§ 8106; and 3) plaintiff disclaimed the release by returning the consideration and claims the release was induced by duress.
The Court disagrees with all of defendant’s contentions, agrees with all of plaintiff’s contentions, except the last, and concludes, as to that position, that it presents matter in conflict which must be resolved by the jury.
19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2,
having to do with the establishment of a State apprenticeship sys-
tern, and 29
Del C.
§ 6912,
having to do with prevailing wage rate provisions in pub-lie construction contracts, in specific language did not require the registration of
plaintiff in a bona fide apprenticeship program. However, the Department of Labor of the State of Delaware (“Department”) promulgated certain regulations, in effect in 1977 and 1978, in connection with apprentices employed on state contracts pursuant to 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2 and 29
Del.C.
§ 6912. According to Regulation 2.2, an apprentice may work as an apprentice under particular state contracts “only when they are registered individually under a bona fide apprenticeship program with the Department.” Effective April, 1, 1979, the regulation was amended stating that the wage rate to be paid to an unregistered apprentice, shall be the rate determined by the Secretary of Labor for the classification of work he actually performed.
Regulation 2.2, in effect in 1977 and 1978 stated:
“(a) Apprentices will be permitted to work as such on State contracts in excess of $2,000 only when they are registered individually under a bona fide apprenticeship program registered with the Department.
“(b) The prevailing wage rate for registered apprentices shall be the percentage of the laborers’ or mechanics’ rate as determined for this region by the United States Department of Labor.”
Regulation 2.2, as amended, requires:
“(a) Apprentices will be permitted to work as such on State contracts in excess of $2,000 only when they are registered with the State Department of Labor, Apprenticeship and Training Section.
“(b) The Journeyman’s rate on all State contracts is that rate determined by the State Prevailing Wage Survey and the percentage of that journeyman’s rate that the registered apprentice receives will be the percentage that the registered apprentice qualifies for under the terms of the individual’s existing Apprenticeship Agreement.
“(c) Any employee listed on the payroll at an apprentice wage rate, who is not registered as above, shall be paid the wage rate determined by the Secretary of Labor for the classification of work he actually performed.”
Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Karen Peterson, former supervisor of the Labor Law Enforcement Section of the Department. .According to the affidavit the Department, in 1977 and 1978, interpreted the
regulation to mean that an apprentice not registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program could not be considered an apprentice and, therefore, could not be paid at an apprentice’s rate of pay, but was entitled to receive journeyman’s wages; that the purpose of the amended Regulation 2.2 in 1979 was to clarify the intent of the regulation in effect in 1977 and 1978, but not to change the effect of the previous regulation.
An administrative agency’s construction of regulations enacted by it and statutes it administers are given great weight by the courts, provided said construction is not clearly erroneous. The courts, however, ultimately determine the true interpretation or construction of a particular statute or regulation. 2 Am.Jur.2d
Administrative Law
§§ 306, 307.
The affidavit here is an interpretation of the Department of Regulation 2.2 expressed, not by a mere employee, but by the Superintendent of Enforcement. No contradiction appearing, it can be taken as Department interpretation. The Department’s interpretation is not inconsistent with 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2 which simply sets forth the State’s policy to encourage the development of an apprenticeship system through the voluntary cooperation of management, labor, and interested state agencies. This policy does not prohibit the mandatory registration of apprentices. Nor is the interpretation of the regulation contrary to 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 which provides, inter alia, for the payment of wages to various classes of laborers and mechanics as determined by the Department.
The Department’s interpretation coincides with the Court’s conclusion that a fair reading of 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2 and 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 and Regulation 2.2, both before and after the 1979 amendment, required the registration of plaintiff.
With respect to defendant’s contention that plaintiff has released all claims here asserted, the record reflects that on August 18, 1978, plaintiff signed a document in favor of defendant releasing it from “any and all claims for unpaid wages from the beginning of time to the date hereof.” Plaintiff received $50.00 in consideration for the execution of the release. Approximately ten days thereafter, plaintiff returned the $50.00 check.
Plaintiff claims defendant’s agent contacted him prior to the execution of the release and made various threats amounting to economic duress. Whether or not “duress” existed is in dispute, thus presenting a material issue of fact regarding the validity of the release which must be resolved by the trier of fact. In determining whether duress has been.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CIVIL ACTION
O’HARA, Judge.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant underpaid him during 1977 and 1978, when plaintiff worked as an electrician on jobs which defendant had contracted to perform for the State of Delaware. Plaintiff claims the failure of defendant to register plaintiff in a bona fide apprenticeship program entitled him to be paid the higher wages of a journeyman. Defendant has moved for summary judgment; plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment.
Defendant, admitting it employed plaintiff as alleged, and did not register him as an apprentice, bases its motion upon several grounds: 1) defendant was not required to register plaintiff as an apprentice pursuant to 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 and 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2; 2) defendant has been released from any claim for unpaid wages; 3) 10
Del.C.
§ 8111 bars any claim for wages accruing prior to April 10, 1978; and 4) plaintiff lacks standing to bring an action under 29
Del.C.
§ 6912.
Plaintiff premises his motion upon the grounds that 1) 29
Del.C.
§ 6912, and regulations promulgated thereunder, mandate the registration of plaintiff in a bona fide apprenticeship program; 2) the action was filed within the statutory limitation period set forth in 10
Del.C.
§ 8106; and 3) plaintiff disclaimed the release by returning the consideration and claims the release was induced by duress.
The Court disagrees with all of defendant’s contentions, agrees with all of plaintiff’s contentions, except the last, and concludes, as to that position, that it presents matter in conflict which must be resolved by the jury.
19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2,
having to do with the establishment of a State apprenticeship sys-
tern, and 29
Del C.
§ 6912,
having to do with prevailing wage rate provisions in pub-lie construction contracts, in specific language did not require the registration of
plaintiff in a bona fide apprenticeship program. However, the Department of Labor of the State of Delaware (“Department”) promulgated certain regulations, in effect in 1977 and 1978, in connection with apprentices employed on state contracts pursuant to 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2 and 29
Del.C.
§ 6912. According to Regulation 2.2, an apprentice may work as an apprentice under particular state contracts “only when they are registered individually under a bona fide apprenticeship program with the Department.” Effective April, 1, 1979, the regulation was amended stating that the wage rate to be paid to an unregistered apprentice, shall be the rate determined by the Secretary of Labor for the classification of work he actually performed.
Regulation 2.2, in effect in 1977 and 1978 stated:
“(a) Apprentices will be permitted to work as such on State contracts in excess of $2,000 only when they are registered individually under a bona fide apprenticeship program registered with the Department.
“(b) The prevailing wage rate for registered apprentices shall be the percentage of the laborers’ or mechanics’ rate as determined for this region by the United States Department of Labor.”
Regulation 2.2, as amended, requires:
“(a) Apprentices will be permitted to work as such on State contracts in excess of $2,000 only when they are registered with the State Department of Labor, Apprenticeship and Training Section.
“(b) The Journeyman’s rate on all State contracts is that rate determined by the State Prevailing Wage Survey and the percentage of that journeyman’s rate that the registered apprentice receives will be the percentage that the registered apprentice qualifies for under the terms of the individual’s existing Apprenticeship Agreement.
“(c) Any employee listed on the payroll at an apprentice wage rate, who is not registered as above, shall be paid the wage rate determined by the Secretary of Labor for the classification of work he actually performed.”
Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Karen Peterson, former supervisor of the Labor Law Enforcement Section of the Department. .According to the affidavit the Department, in 1977 and 1978, interpreted the
regulation to mean that an apprentice not registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program could not be considered an apprentice and, therefore, could not be paid at an apprentice’s rate of pay, but was entitled to receive journeyman’s wages; that the purpose of the amended Regulation 2.2 in 1979 was to clarify the intent of the regulation in effect in 1977 and 1978, but not to change the effect of the previous regulation.
An administrative agency’s construction of regulations enacted by it and statutes it administers are given great weight by the courts, provided said construction is not clearly erroneous. The courts, however, ultimately determine the true interpretation or construction of a particular statute or regulation. 2 Am.Jur.2d
Administrative Law
§§ 306, 307.
The affidavit here is an interpretation of the Department of Regulation 2.2 expressed, not by a mere employee, but by the Superintendent of Enforcement. No contradiction appearing, it can be taken as Department interpretation. The Department’s interpretation is not inconsistent with 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2 which simply sets forth the State’s policy to encourage the development of an apprenticeship system through the voluntary cooperation of management, labor, and interested state agencies. This policy does not prohibit the mandatory registration of apprentices. Nor is the interpretation of the regulation contrary to 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 which provides, inter alia, for the payment of wages to various classes of laborers and mechanics as determined by the Department.
The Department’s interpretation coincides with the Court’s conclusion that a fair reading of 19
Del.C.,
Ch. 2 and 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 and Regulation 2.2, both before and after the 1979 amendment, required the registration of plaintiff.
With respect to defendant’s contention that plaintiff has released all claims here asserted, the record reflects that on August 18, 1978, plaintiff signed a document in favor of defendant releasing it from “any and all claims for unpaid wages from the beginning of time to the date hereof.” Plaintiff received $50.00 in consideration for the execution of the release. Approximately ten days thereafter, plaintiff returned the $50.00 check.
Plaintiff claims defendant’s agent contacted him prior to the execution of the release and made various threats amounting to economic duress. Whether or not “duress” existed is in dispute, thus presenting a material issue of fact regarding the validity of the release which must be resolved by the trier of fact. In determining whether duress has been. practiced in obtaining a release where there is no physical force used or threat of physical injury, the general test which applies is whether or not any unlawful threats found to have occurred destroyed the victim’s free will and compelled him to comply with a demand for the release. 66 Am.Jur.2d
Release
§ 26.
The plaintiff argues additionally, however, that the release should be considered as having been disclaimed as a matter of law relying largely on the decision in
Bingham v. Airport Limousine Service,
W.D. Ark., 314 F.Supp. 565 (1970), involving an action for unpaid compensation under the Pair Labor Standards Act. In that case the Court, in an apparently somewhat similar factual setting to the instant case, concluded that the purpose of the Act involved would, in and of itself, be nullified if employers were permitted to diminish their liability through obtaining, by persuasion, a release from an employee for unpaid wages in consideration of a sum less than that provided by law.
In examining this principle, this Court is unpersuaded that the purpose of the Act, here involved, is sufficiently compelling to defeat a release otherwise knowingly and intelligently entered into. In other words, the Court is not convinced by the rationale of the
Bingham
case that a basic concept of the law relating to the validity of releases should be thus brushed aside.
The Court is of the opinion, that, in this instance, the release involved, and its validity, remains an issue of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.
Turning to the statute of limitations issue raised by defendant, we find that 10
Del.C.
§ 8111 bars an action for recovery, upon a claim for wages, if that action is brought after the expiration of one year from the accruing of the cause of action. However, turning to 10
Del.C.
§ 8106, relied upon by plaintiff as controlling, we find that an action based upon a statute must be commenced within three years from the accruing of the cause of action.
10
Del.C.
§ 8111 applies to claims arising out of services performed.
Goldman v. Braunstein’s, Inc.,
Del.Supr., 240 A.2d 577 (1968);
Wilmington Housing Auth. v. Rocky Marciano Const. Co.,
D.Del., 407 F.Supp. 228 (1976). However, although plaintiff’s claim here is for unpaid “wages”, these wages were not due and owing as a result of services performed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to the higher wage of a journeyman as a consequence of defendant’s failure to register plaintiff as an apprentice. This remedy unequivocally derives from statute.
Nevertheless, defendant argues, 10
Del.C.
§ 8111 is so comprehensive in scope that it applies not only to claims for wages, but also indemnification and disability and, thus, should apply to plaintiff’s cause of action. Claims for indemnification and disability, however, are benefits arising from work, labor, or personal services performed.
Mitchell v. E. I. duPont deNemours & Co.,
Del.Supr., 310 A.2d 641 (1973);
Sorensen v. The Overland Corporation,
D.Del., 142 F.Supp. 354 (1956); aff’d 3rd Cir., 242 F.2d 70 (1957). Here, plaintiff is not entitled to journeyman’s wages as benefits for the work he performed, but rather is entitled to journeyman’s wages because of the employer’s non-compliance with the statute.
In any event, the nature of the cause of action determines the applicable statute. If a substantial doubt exists as to which is the applicable statutory period, the longer, rather than the shorter, period of limitations is to be preferred. 51 Am.Jur.2d
Limitation of Actions
§ 63. The Court concludes, therefore, that the appropriate statute of limitations here is found in § 8106.
On the standing issue, the record reflects that on or about August 11, 1978, plaintiff contacted the Department of Justice to discuss the claim for lost wages. The Department of Justice initially agreed to file suit on behalf of plaintiff, but eventually decided against it. Plaintiff contends that 29
Del.C.
§ 6912(d) simply provides that a laborer or mechanic employed by a contractor or subcontractor shall have a right of action for unpaid wages and that such right, if requested, shall be brought by the Department of Justice acting for the Department on behalf of the laborer or mechanic. Defendant, on the contrary, argues that § 6912(d) only permits a suit for unpaid wages to be brought by the State.
Prior to the enactment of 29
Del.C.
§ 6912(d) in 1972, the employee was expressly given a cause of action for unpaid wages, pursuant to 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 (formerly § 6913).
Callaway v. N.B. Downing Co.,
Del.Super., 172 A.2d 260 (1961). It is inconceivable that the Legislature by subsequently enacting subsection (d) intended to expressly authorize an action for unpaid wages and yet prohibit the employee from making the ultimate decision as to whether or not to pursue a remedy. Thus, plaintiff, in the Court’s opinion, has standing to bring an action in his own name, pursuant to 29
Del.C.
§ 6912, in the event that, as here, the Department of Justice refuses to bring the action.
In light of the foregoing analysis and conclusions, plaintiff’s motion is granted with respect to the issues of the interpretation of 29
Del.C.
§ 6912 and regulations promulgated thereunder, the applicable statute of limitations and standing; plaintiff’s motion with respect to the validity of the release, however, is denied as it presents conflicting matter which must be resolved by the jury; defendant’s motion is denied as to all contentions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Plaintiff also claims, via the amended complaint, that defendant violated 40 U.S.C. § 276 and the regulations promulgated thereunder in failing to register plaintiff
as an apprentice for work performed pursuant to contracts between the United States and defendant. Plaintiff, however, has now effectively abandoned this position and any separately asserted claim for additional damages.