A newly filed Superior Court lawsuit illustrates why developers may no longer treat contractor wage compliance as someone else’s problem. The lawsuit was filed by LIUNA Local 3 and Laborers’ Eastern Region Organizing Fund (LEROF). The complaint alleges that more than 240 laborers working on two major developments went unpaid for weeks, leaving at least $716,000.00 in wages outstanding and exposing upstream contractors to claims exceeding $2 million including liquidated damages and other relief.
The lawsuit names the general contractor and a concrete subcontractor, not the developers, as defendants. Nevertheless, the political and reputational consequences have reached the developers whose projects were involved.
Amended in 2024, N.J.S.A. § 34:11-67.1 generally makes the contractor directly retained by the owner responsible for wage debts incurred by subcontractors at any tier. Those debts may include unpaid wages, interest, penalties, and liquidated damages. Since 2024, unions have also been authorized to bring actions under the statute, including on behalf of consenting workers who are not union members. Notably, this new lawsuit is the earliest example of a union exercising its authority under the 2024 amendment.
Several other states (including California, Illinois, and New York) have enacted or are considering upstream wage-liability statutes. The recent interest by various states concerning additional protections for workers may be an early indicator of a shift toward a recognized compliance model nationally. Depending on the eagerness of other states to follow suit and the adjudication of lawsuits stemming from these additional protections being adopted and/or considered, developers should consider preempting this snowballing shift.
How, then, can a developer provide credibility when seeking municipal approvals or distinguish itself from competing developments?
The answer should not be merely that the project will use “reputable” or “union” contractors. Compliance is a system, not a label. A meaningful Responsible Contractor Program should contain five elements.
First, every contractor, subcontractor, labor broker, and staffing company should be screened before mobilization. The review should include government debarment and wage-violation lists, stop-work orders, unsatisfied wage or tax judgments, workers’ compensation coverage, payroll-tax compliance, prior final violations, and financial capacity to meet payroll. Pending allegations should be disclosed, but distinguished, from adjudicated violations.
Second, the developer should require complete transparency throughout the contracting chain without exception. Every employer furnishing labor to the project should be identified and approved in advance. No undisclosed labor broker or lower-tier employer should be permitted on the site.
Third, compliance should be verified during construction. The general contractor should submit weekly certified-payroll-style reports, electronic time records, applicable wage and overtime rates, benefit-fund remittances, and traceable evidence that workers actually received payment. Payroll should be reconciled against site-access or daily manpower records. A paper certification is of limited value if nobody confirms that the payroll cleared.
Fourth, workers should have an independent, multilingual means of reporting concerns without retaliation. An owner-selected integrity monitor should have authority to audit payroll and subcontract records and to conduct confidential worker interviews. Significantly, the New Jersey Department of Labor (NJDOL) imposed electronic timekeeping, independent monitoring, and subcontract-audit requirements in a 2024 wage-compliance settlement involving Concrete Rising.
Finally, the contractual remedies must be real. Subject to applicable prompt-payment requirements, the developer should be able to require immediate cure, escrow disputed amounts, remove or replace the offending employer, and recover all resulting losses. For projects seeking the strongest competitive or political commitment, the developer can establish a payroll escrow, letter of credit, guaranty, or wage-payment bond so that workers are protected even if a lower-tier employer becomes insolvent.
A developer may go further by voluntarily adopting prevailing-wage rates, registered-apprenticeship requirements, or a lawful project labor agreement. Those are substantive labor-policy commitments with real cost implications. They should not, however, be confused with basic legal compliance: union status does not establish that wages and benefit contributions are current, just as open-shop status does not establish noncompliance.
The most credible promise is straightforward: every contractor will be screened, every labor tier will be disclosed, payroll will be verified, workers will have an independent reporting channel, and substantiated wage deficiencies will trigger immediate financial protection and enforcement.
That commitment—which should be emphasized in RFP responses, at land use hearings, etc.—does more than reassure public officials. It protects the project against stop-work orders, upstream wage liability, contractor insolvency, and the substantial reputational cost of discovering, after the building is complete, that the people who constructed it were never paid.
Recent Comments