ILNews

Plea reached in first-ever common construction wage prosecution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office has reached a plea agreement in a common construction wage violation involving an Indianapolis contractor, believed to be the first prosecution of this kind in Indiana.

White River Mechanical Inc. worked as a subcontractor on two Indianapolis Public School projects. A grand jury investigation in March 2011 showed that several employees of White River Mechanical were underpaid for work on the public school projects. The company incorrectly listed skill levels and pay rates on company payroll records and misrepresented the status of employees on required reporting to IPS.  

What used to be known as the prevailing wage law, Indiana Code 5-16-7, the Common Construction Wage Act requires any entity awarded a contract for public work – and any subcontractor of the construction – to pay no less than the predetermined common wage rate as set by a committee in each county. Employees are divided into three classes – unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled.  A contractor or subcontractor who knowingly fails to pay the rate of wages commits a Class B misdemeanor. Changes were made to the law during the 2011 session of the Indiana General Assembly that went into effect July 1.

As part of the plea agreement, White River Mechanical will pay a $1,000 fine and submit to an audit by the Indiana Department of Labor to determine the amount it owes to current and former employees. The prosecutor’s office estimated that the amount of unpaid wages and benefits is more than $50,000.

“Today we are sending a message that we will abide by and enforce the Common Wage law in Marion County,” said Prosecutor Terry Curry.  “Contractors who undercut the Common Wage law are taking advantage of their employees, their peers, and the public by not paying their workers the amount that is required and set by law.  At the same time, they are competing unfairly against those companies who play by the rules and pay their employees the correct and fair wage they are owed.”

The Indiana Department of Labor reported that this is the first time this kind of violation has been prosecuted in Indiana.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT