You are here: / / APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE...
, ,

APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the prevailing wage provision of Labor Law 220 was properly interpreted by the Department of Labor (DOL) to mean that apprentices who work outside of their apprenticeship training cannot be paid at the lower apprenticeship rate. Here apprentice glaziers who were doing ironwork when installing storefronts must be paid higher journey-level rates for ironwork:

… [T]he DOL interprets Labor Law § 220 (3-e) to mean that apprentices employed on public work projects may be paid apprentice rates only if they are performing tasks within the trade classification (e.g., “glazier,” “ironworker”) that is the subject of the apprenticeship program in which they are enrolled. Apprentices who are performing tasks, in the installation of storefronts, curtain wall, and preglazed windows, that are classified as ironwork tasks may be paid the apprentice rate only if they are enrolled in an ironworker apprentice program (approved by the DOL), as opposed to a glazier apprentice program. Apprentices learning any trade other than ironwork, including those enrolled in a glazier apprenticeship program, must be paid journey-level ironworker prevailing wages and benefit rates if they are engaged in the parts of a work process that are classified as ironwork tasks. * * *

Given that Labor Law § 220 as a whole was “intended to prevent employers from cutting standards of construction work by hiring an excessive number of unskilled employees, and to ensure that learning-level workers receive approved, supervised training” … , it was rational for the DOL to conclude that section 220 (3-e) prohibits employers from diluting standards by hiring apprentices to perform tasks in trades for which they are not training. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2018 NY Slip Op 06963, CtApp 10-18-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/LABOR LAW (APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/APPRENTICES (LABOR LAW, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))

You might also like
REVERSING THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WITHOUT OPINION OR MEMORANDUM DECISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (CT APP).
WHERE THE RELEVANT OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED IN TWO COUNTIES, NO NEED FOR TWO SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE DECK OF HER APRARTMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON FILE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY ABOUT THE REASONS FOR A SITTING JUROR’S ABSENCE BEFORE SUBSTITUTING AN ALTERNATE JUROR; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS AS APPLIED TO SEX OFFENDERS CONVICTED BEFORE THE STATUTE WENT INTO EFFECT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE; HERE PETITIONER WAS INCARCERATED PAST HIS PAROLE DATE BECAUSE HOUSING WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE SCHOOL GROUNDS LAW COULD NOT BE FOUND (CT APP). ​
PROOF PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT ATTEMPTED THIRD OR FOURTH DEGREE LARCENY, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONVICTION OF THE B MISDEMEANORS WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED WOULD RESULT IN DEPORTATION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (CT APP).
County Can Charge Towns the Amounts Paid by the County On Behalf of Community College Students Residing in the Towns, Even Though the State, by Statute, Undertook the Responsibility to Reimburse the Counties for those Expenses—One Statute Does Not Impliedly Repeal Another Unless It Is Impossible to Give Effect to Both

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD... COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED...