{ "id": 3160814, "name": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. E. ALLEN BERNARDI, Director of Labor, Appellant, v. ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Bernardi v. Roofing Systems, Inc.", "decision_date": "1984-04-19", "docket_number": "No. 58096", "first_page": "424", "last_page": "427", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "101 Ill. 2d 424" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "191 U.S. 207", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3622227 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222-23" }, { "page": "158" }, { "page": "127" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/191/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N.E. 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "22" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.Y. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 1996336 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/256/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 Ill. 576", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2683518 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/415/0576-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ill. 2d 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3161149 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421-22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/101/0413-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 375, "char_count": 5047, "ocr_confidence": 0.741, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.715122168896232e-08, "percentile": 0.49355811863934923 }, "sha256": "6d02aa5d371c5bed6cc8d4456f0a43cf78b5f40023a86670e20f2c4ea1bbbf27", "simhash": "1:e811df43c8ddc4f8", "word_count": 817 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:10.294516+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE ex rel. E. ALLEN BERNARDI, Director of Labor, Appellant, v. ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SIMON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, E. Allen Bernardi, Director of the Illinois Department of Labor, filed this action against the defendant, Roofing Systems, Inc., in the circuit court of Ogle County to compel compliance with the provisions of \u201cAn Act regulating wages of *** workers employed in any public works ***.\u201d (Prevailing Wage Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, pars. 39s \u2014 1 to 39s \u2014 12.) The Director alleged that the defendant was working on a public works construction project and that it had refused to pay its workers wages that were at least equal to the generally prevailing wage rate in the locality in violation of section 3 of the Prevailing Wage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 39s \u2014 3). In his complaint the Director sought a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction and access to the defendant\u2019s wage and hour records.\nThe defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, that neither the contract nor the statute required the defendant to pay a prevailing wage, and that the Attorney General lacked legal capacity to bring this action on behalf of the Director. At a hearing on the motion the circuit court judge, sua sponte, declared his belief that the Prevailing Wage Act is unconstitutional because it requires public bodies to pay workers on construction projects more than they would without the statute. He then entered an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Prevailing Wage Act violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the State and Federal constitutions (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 2; U.S. Const., amend. XIV, sec. 1). The Director appealed directly to this court. 87 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)(1).\nIn Hoyen v. County of Ogle (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 413, we upheld the constitutionality of the Prevailing Wage Act against similar claims. In that case we said:\n\u201cWe hold that the Prevailing Wage Act does not violate the due process clause, for it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State interest. The same observations sustain the Act against attack under the minimum-scrutiny standard of the equal protection clause. A purpose of the Act is to assure that people working on public works projects receive a decent wage in order to secure \u2018 \u201c*** the advantage to the state of having the work performed under conditions which give some assurance that the work will be completed without interruptions or delay by workmen of average skill. ***.\u201d \u2019 (Bradley v. Casey (1953), 415 Ill. 576, 586 (quoting Long Island R.R. Co. v. Department of Labor (1931), 256 N.Y. 498, 513, 177 N.E. 17, 22).) The Act, as originally enacted, furthered this aim by equalizing wages paid on public works projects with those paid on private projects in order to discourage public works contractors from hiring unreliable migrant laborers at subsistence wages. Under the 1961 amendment, however, the legislature replaced this scheme with the provision requiring public works contractors to pay the wages generally paid on public works projects in the community.\nAlthough the contractors complain about the deleterious consequences of this legislative scheme, these effects simply are a result of the legislature\u2019s decision to stabilize labor conditions on public works projects by creating a prevailing wage base. Whether or not the legislature\u2019s scheme is worth the price, the Prevailing Wage Act is constitutional under the minimum-rationality standard of the due process and equal protection clauses; \u2018it belongs to the state, as the guardian and trustee for its people, and having control of its affairs, to prescribe the conditions upon which it will permit public work to be done on its behalf, or on behalf of the municipalities.\u2019 Atkins v. Kansas (1903), 191 U.S. 207, 222-23, 48 L. Ed. 148, 158, 24 S. Ct. 124, 127.\u201d Hayen v. County of Ogle (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 413, 421-22.\nOur decision in Hayen applies to this case. The circuit court\u2019s conclusion that the Prevailing Wage Act is unconstitutional is reversed. No other issue of law or fact is presented for our decision.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SIMON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Patricia Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.", "D. Peter DeBruyne and Robert E. Roman, Jr., of De-Bruyne & Roman, P.C., of Rockford, for appellee.", "Lester Asher and Edwin H. Benn, of Asher, Good-stein, Pavalon, Gittler, Greenfield & Segall, Ltd., of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois State Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al..", "Phebus, Tummelson, Bryan & Knox, of Urbana (Joseph W. Phebus and Janet A. Flaccus, of counsel), for amicus curiae State of Illinois AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Committee on Prevailing Wages." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 58096.\nTHE PEOPLE ex rel. E. ALLEN BERNARDI, Director of Labor, Appellant, v. ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1984.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Patricia Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.\nD. Peter DeBruyne and Robert E. Roman, Jr., of De-Bruyne & Roman, P.C., of Rockford, for appellee.\nLester Asher and Edwin H. Benn, of Asher, Good-stein, Pavalon, Gittler, Greenfield & Segall, Ltd., of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois State Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al..\nPhebus, Tummelson, Bryan & Knox, of Urbana (Joseph W. Phebus and Janet A. Flaccus, of counsel), for amicus curiae State of Illinois AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Committee on Prevailing Wages." }, "file_name": "0424-01", "first_page_order": 436, "last_page_order": 439 }