标签:分包商

1
是否提名–波兰分包的基本规则
2
加州施工风险管理更新:在Khosh诉Staples Construction Co.一案中,法院进一步规定了承包商不应对潜水艇工地受伤负责的规则
3
工会和福利基金受托人不“Subcontractors”根据宾夕法尼亚州最高法院的留置权法

是否提名–波兰分包的基本规则

通过 多米尼卡(DominikaJędrzejczyk)

It is difficult to imagine a complex infrastructure project without the participation of 分包商. 在 波兰, where large projects are often contracted to foreign companies, local 分包商 play an important role. This was also the case prior to the EURO 2012 football championships, when 分包商 were heavily engaged in the construction of roads and railways necessary to secure access to the newly built football stadiums. However, the EURO 2012 also resulted in a wave of bankruptcies and liquidations of Polish 分包商, who suffered due to payment withholding, warranty deposits, contractors’ bankruptcies and lack of financial liquidity along the supply chain.

阅读更多

加州施工风险管理更新:在Khosh诉Staples Construction Co.一案中,法院进一步规定了承包商不应对潜水艇工地受伤负责的规则

通过 蒂莫西·皮尔斯, 赫克托·埃斯皮诺萨埃里克·科达迪安,K&L Gates, Los Angeles

法院的裁决 科什诉Staples Const。有限公司, Case No. 56-2014-00447304-CU-PO-VTA (Oct. 26, 2016) helps to further define the boundaries for whether a general contractor may be found responsible for worksite injuries suffered by an independent 分包商’s employee.

科什, the 加利福尼亚州 Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision that general contractor Staples Construction Company, 在 c. (“Staples”) was not responsible for injuries sustained by an electrical 分包商’s employee, who was severely electrocuted on the jobsite.

阅读更多

工会和福利基金受托人不“Subcontractors”根据宾夕法尼亚州最高法院的留置权法

通过 金伯利·卡尔(Kimberly L.Karr),K&L Gates, Pittsburgh

2014年4月17日,宾夕法尼亚州最高法院裁定宾夕法尼亚州’s mechanics’ lien law, 49 P.S.§ 1101, , does not allow trustees of union benefit funds to bring claims for non-payment as 分包商 against employers and owners. 参见W. Pa。Combined Funds 在 c.诉Scott的Bricklayers’s Dev. Co.,案号36 WAP 2012(2014年4月17日,Pa);大号bor’W. Pa。等人的合并基金。 v。斯科特’s Dev. Co.,案例号:WAP 2012(2014年4月17日,Pa)。该决定推翻了先前由高等法院裁定支持工会的高等法院。

在宾夕法尼亚州下’s mechanics’ lien law, unpaid 分包商 can record a lien on an owner’s property. 看到 49 P.S.§ 1301. If the primary contractor continues to withhold rightful payment, the 分包商 can foreclose on the lien and force the sale of the property in lieu of compensation. 请参阅编号。 at § 1701.

The question before the 宾夕法尼亚最高法院 was whether unions and benefit fund trustees could qualify as 分包商 under the mechanics’留置权法。纠纷源于两个工会成员在伊利县的一处物业上进行的建筑工程。总承包商J. William Pustelak 在 c.使用集体谈判协议雇用了工会。协议特别规定,当总承包商需要瓦工和/或劳工时,它将从工会那里得到他们。

在伊利县的工作没有报酬之后,工会对财产所有人斯科特提出留置权’发展。工会要求欠工人基金约42,000美元的捐款’健康,福利,退休金和附带福利。史考特’s Development objected on the grounds that unions and benefit fund trustees were not considered contractors or 分包商 under 宾夕法尼亚州’s mechanics’留置权法。初审法官驳回了该案,但高等法院以应自由解释该规约为由将其恢复原状。

The Supreme Court ultimately determined that unions and benefit fund trustees could not be considered 分包商. It reasoned that a “subcontractor”根据定义是个人或企业“谁为总承包商履行合同并从原始合同中提取了一部分劳动或材料要求,”而不是普通劳工。 引用Clifford F. MacEvoy Co.诉美国使用&卡尔文·汤姆金斯的好处,《美国判例汇编》第322卷第102期,第109页(1944)。法院还引用了法规中的措辞’s official legislative comments, which make a similar distinction between 分包商 and employees. Moreover, according to the court, the trustees could not assert that an implied-in-fact subcontract existed, where the trustees’索赔基于明确的集体谈判协议。

最高法院似乎也考虑了高等法院的影响。’如果能够持续下去的话,那将是决定。法院裁定是否可以考虑工会工人“subcontractors” under the mechanics’留置权法规定,私有财产所有者将被迫充当承包商的担保人’一般就业义务。根据最高法院,下级法院’这项决定将有效地创造出新的索赔人类别,从而使私人财产所有人蒙受不必要的诉讼风险。因此,宾夕法尼亚州的工会会员和劳工只能通过更传统的责任理论(例如违反合同)来追讨款项。
 

版权所有©2019,K&L Gates LLP。版权所有。