IBEW v. Corpus Christi ISD: Workers Gain Standing in Prevailing Wage Dispute

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 278, along with a group of individual workers, filed an action against the Corpus Christi Independent School District and members of its Board of Trustees. The workers sought a declaration that the District’s prevailing wage rate determination violated Texas Government Code Chapter 2258 and requested injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the rates. The workers asserted that the District did not adopt wage rates determined by the United States Department of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act and did not conduct a compliant survey of wages within the District’s boundaries.

The prevailing wage statute required political subdivisions to determine the general prevailing rate of per diem wages applicable to public works projects. They could do this either by conducting a survey of wages paid on similar projects within the political subdivision where the work would occur or by using the Department of Labor’s Davis-Bacon wage determinations. The workers asserted that the District adopted wage rates based on information developed by Texas A&M University that included statewide and countywide data rather than wages specific to workers within the District.

Proceedings in the Trial Court

The workers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the evidence showed the District did not use one of the two methods required by statute. They presented materials from the Board of Trustees’ meeting in which the prevailing wage package was adopted, Department of Labor wage data, interrogatory responses, a map of the District, emails between IBEW and the Board, and informational materials describing wage discrepancies.

The District filed a competing motion for summary judgment. It asserted three defenses: that the workers lacked standing, that the prevailing wage determination was final and not subject to judicial review, and that the determination complied with statutory requirements. The District attached a declaration from its construction project manager describing conversations with contractors, review of multiple wage surveys, and consideration of Davis-Bacon rates.

The trial court granted the District’s motion in full, denied the workers’ motion, and ordered that the workers take nothing. The workers appealed.

Standing to Challenge the Wage Determination

On appeal, the court first addressed whether the workers had standing. It held that the union lacked associational standing because it did not identify specific members affected by the wage determination or show that any identified member would suffer a concrete injury.

The court then evaluated the standing of individual workers. Several workers alleged that they were taxpayers whose taxes funded the District’s projects. Under Texas law, taxpayers may seek to prevent the unlawful expenditure of public funds. The workers alleged that the District intended to use public funds to pay wages that were unlawfully determined. The record included materials suggesting that the prevailing wage determination would apply to upcoming construction projects funded by bond measures. Because the alleged illegal expenditure concerned future spending, the court held that the taxpayer-workers had standing to pursue their claims.

Reviewability and the Statutory Framework

The District argued that its prevailing wage determination was final and not subject to judicial review. The appellate court examined earlier case law but noted that the statutory scheme had changed. Public bodies no longer possessed unfettered discretion; they were instead required to choose between the two methods set forth in the statute. As a result, an ultra vires claim—alleging that officials acted outside their legal authority—could proceed against the Board of Trustees in their official capacities.

The court concluded that while the wage determination itself was final, courts could review whether the Board acted within the bounds of its authority when making that determination.

Fact Issues Concerning the Wage Survey

The key question was whether the Board complied with § 2258.022(a). It was undisputed that the Board did not adopt Davis-Bacon wage rates. The court evaluated whether the Board conducted a survey of wages within its political subdivision.

The record showed that the Board adopted a survey compiled by Texas A&M University that incorporated statewide and countywide wage data. The statute required surveys to reflect wages paid within the political subdivision where the work would occur. Because the District’s boundaries did not encompass the entire county or the state, reliance on broader surveys raised a fact issue.

The court also considered whether the Board conducted any survey at all. While the District’s project manager attested to speaking with contractors and reviewing local information, the court held that relying primarily on an external survey incorporating nonlocal data might not satisfy the statutory requirement. Furthermore, outsourcing survey responsibilities to an entity other than the Department of Labor was not permitted under the statute.

Because the record contained evidence suggesting both compliance and noncompliance, the court determined that a fact issue remained. It held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the District and in denying summary judgment for the workers on the standing issue.

The Court’s Decision

The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. It held that the taxpayer-workers had standing and that their claims against the Board in their official capacities could proceed. It reversed the grant of summary judgment for the District and the Board of Trustees on the prevailing wage determination and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Assistance With Davis-Bacon Act Matters

If you’ve experienced issues involving prevailing wage obligations or Davis-Bacon Act requirements, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles Davis-Bacon Act matters. Reach out to our team through our contact page to learn how our team can assist with your claim.