Skip to main content

D.W. Close Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries

Wash. Ct. App.February 11, 2008No. No. 58444-8-ICited 32 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the Department of Labor and Industries' interpretation of prevailing wage regulations, finding that workers pulling low voltage wiring through conduit longer than 10 feet must be compensated as inside wiremen rather than electronic technicians, and upheld the validity of the wage regulations.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** D.W. Close Company was doing construction work that required workers to pull low voltage wiring through long conduits (tubes that protect electrical wires). The company was paying these workers as "electronic technicians," which meant lower wages. However, the Washington Department of Labor and Industries said the workers should be paid as "inside wiremen" - a higher-paid classification - because they were pulling wires through conduits longer than 10 feet. The company disagreed and challenged this decision in court. **What the Court Decided** The Washington Court of Appeals sided with the Department of Labor and Industries. The court ruled that when workers pull low voltage wiring through conduits longer than 10 feet, they must be paid at the higher "inside wiremen" wage rate, not the lower "electronic technician" rate. The court also confirmed that the state's wage regulations were valid and properly enforced. **Why This Matters for Workers** This decision protects workers from being misclassified into lower-paying job categories when they're actually doing higher-skilled work. It ensures that construction workers performing certain electrical tasks receive appropriate compensation based on the actual work they perform, not just their job title.

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.