No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and affirmed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to set the prevailing wage for asbestos workers at $38.00 per hour, rejecting the employers' challenge to the exclusion of apprentice hours from the wage calculation.
HTH Companies v. Missouri Department of Labor & Industrial Relations
This case was about how much asbestos workers should be paid on government construction projects in Missouri. HTH Companies and other employers challenged the state's decision to set the prevailing wage at $38.00 per hour for these specialized workers. The employers argued that the state labor department made a mistake when calculating this wage rate by not including apprentice workers' lower wages in their calculations.
The court sided with the Missouri Department of Labor and rejected the employers' challenge. The judges upheld the $38.00 hourly wage rate and agreed that apprentice wages should not be counted when determining what experienced asbestos workers should earn on public projects. The court found that the labor department followed proper procedures in setting this prevailing wage.
This decision matters for workers because it protects higher wage standards on government-funded construction projects. Prevailing wage laws ensure that contractors can't undercut wages by paying below-market rates when working on public buildings, schools, or infrastructure projects. By excluding apprentice wages from these calculations, the ruling helps maintain fair compensation for skilled trades workers and prevents a race to the bottom on wages for taxpayer-funded construction work.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.