A sharp 4-3 split signals this broadband wage fight is far from over
Verizon lost its bid to change wage classifcations for broadband workers in Pennsylvania, a ruling with real stakes for employers on infrastructure projects.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on March 6 upheld a decision requiring employers on publicly funded broadband projects to pay fiber optic cable workers at the electric lineman prevailing wage rate, rather than at the teledata worker rate that Verizon had sought.
The case stems from Pennsylvania's Broadband Infrastructure Program, a statewide initiative launched in 2023 to extend fiber optic networks to unserved and underserved areas of the Commonwealth. The program was funded in part through the COVID-19 American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and required awardees to cover at least 25 percent of project costs. In April 2024, the Broadband Development Authority awarded work on 53 broadband projects to entities across 42 counties, including to Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC.
When the Bureau of Labor Law Compliance issued prevailing wage determinations for those projects, it classified the work under the electric lineman category. Verizon objected. The company, along with the Broadband Communications Association of Pennsylvania, argued that the work involved deploying and splicing low-voltage fiber optic cable, tasks they said were better suited to teledata lineman and teledata worker classifications that Verizon wanted the Secretary to create.
Verizon filed a grievance with the Prevailing Wage Appeals Board on May 22, 2024. The Communications Workers of America and Brightspeed intervened in support of Verizon. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers intervened on the other side, backing the Bureau's classification.
The Board denied the grievance in September 2025. Verizon and the Broadband Communications Association appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The court addressed five issues and affirmed the Board's order on each one.
On the question of whether the Bureau had authority to issue the wage determinations, the court found that the Secretary of Labor and Industry had properly authorized the Bureau to act as her representative. The Bureau had been carrying out prevailing wage determinations on the Secretary's behalf for decades, consistent with the Administrative Code.
On whether the Secretary was required to consult the Prevailing Wage Advisory Board before issuing a determination, the court ruled that consultation was discretionary, not mandatory. That issue produced a 4-3 split. Judge Matthew S. Wolf authored a concurring and dissenting opinion, agreeing that the Bureau was duly authorized but arguing that Section 7 of the Act unambiguously requires the Secretary to consult the Advisory Board before rendering a prevailing wage determination. Wolf contended that the majority had effectively read the consultation requirement out of the statute. Judges McCullough and Wallace joined his opinion.
On the classification itself, the court found the Secretary acted within her discretion. The record showed that the Bureau had traditionally classified cable installation work under the electric lineman category and had publicly clarified that position in a 2018 note posted on the Bureau's website. The Secretary reviewed multiple submissions from Verizon and other parties over several months and repeatedly declined to create new teledata classifications, citing the Department's historical practices, classification decisions from other states, and concerns that adding previo
