 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Associated Builders and Contractors v. Director7/19/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
ON REMAND
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and White and Donofrio, JJ.
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Plaintiff brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of the Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), MCL 408.551 et seq., (1965 PA 166),as vague and as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private parties, specifically, unions and union contractors. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff's vagueness claim on defendants' motions for summary disposition, and allowed the delegation of legislative authority claim to proceed to discovery. Defendants-Intervenors interlocutorily appealed by leave granted the latter ruling, and plaintiff cross-appealed as of right the dismissal of its vagueness claim.
Our initial opinion concluded that because plaintiff had not alleged an "actual controversy," it could not seek declaratory relief. Thus, we did not reach the merits of the constitutional challenges; we reversed the circuit court's denial of summary disposition of the delegation of legislative authority claim and affirmed the dismissal of the vagueness claim. See Associated Builders & Contractors v Wilbur, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals (Docket No. 234037, issued 8/5/2003). Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. After hearing oral arguments on plaintiff's application for leave, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration by this Court, its opinion stating:
We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and hold that plaintiff has presented an 'actual controversy' so that plaintiff can seek declaratory relief under MCR 2.605. We do not address the substantive issue regarding the constitutionality of the PWA; instead, we remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration and resolution of the defendants' appeal and plaintiff's cross-appeal on the merits. [Associated Builders & Contractors v Dep't of Consumer & Industry Services Director, 472 Mich 117, 120; 693 NW2d 374 (2005).]
Having considered the merits of the appeal and cross-appeal, we conclude that the PWA does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to private parties, and thus reverse the circuit court's denial of summary disposition on that claim. In the cross-appeal, we conclude that the PWA is not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied, and affirm the circuit court's dismissal of those claims, though for somewhat different reasons.
I.
Defendants assert that plaintiff's challenge to the PWA as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private parties must fail because that precise claim was rejected by this Court in West Ottawa Public Schools v Babcock, 107 Mich App 237; 309 NW2d 220 (1981).
This Court reviews the circuit court's denial of summary disposition de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. Dep't of State v MEA-NEA, 251 Mich App 110, 115-116; 650 NW2d 120 (2002). Legislation is presumed constitutional absent a clear showing to the contrary. Caterpillar Inc v Dep't of Treasury, 440 Mich 400, 413; 488 NW2d 182 (1992). Statutes must be construed in a constitutional manner if possible. Id.
A.
West Ottawa, supra, was an appeal from the circuit court's declaratory judgment and permanent injunction precluding enforcement of the PWA on the ground that the act constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power to a private party, i.e., unions. This Court reversed, n
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|