Skip to main content

TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL NO. 313 v. Department of Corrections

Wash. Ct. App.December 23, 2003No. 29521-1-II
Defendant WinWashington State Department of Corrections
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Morgan
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the state defendants, holding that the Departments of Personnel, Financial Management, and Corrections did not breach any duty regarding adoption of salary schedules reflecting prevailing wage rates, as ultimate implementation rests with the legislature.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Loses Fight Over State Employee Wages** Teamsters Local 313 sued three Washington state agencies, including the Department of Corrections, claiming they failed to pay workers the correct prevailing wages. The union argued that the state agencies weren't properly implementing salary schedules that reflected what similar workers earned in comparable jobs. The Washington Court of Appeals ruled against the union, finding that the state agencies had done their job correctly. The court determined that these departments had properly created and submitted salary schedules that reflected prevailing wage rates as required by law. However, the court clarified that it's the state legislature's responsibility—not individual state agencies—to actually put these salary schedules into effect. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling shows the limits of what state agencies can do about employee pay. Even when agencies follow the rules for calculating fair wages, they can't unilaterally implement pay increases. State workers who believe they're underpaid may need to focus their efforts on lobbying the legislature rather than suing their employing agencies. The decision highlights how government pay disputes often involve multiple levels of government, making wage increases more complex than in private sector employment.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.