dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. All of the “sturm and drang” over various sections of the Kentucky Constitution (we ought not overlook Section 7) *904is quite unnecessary and akin to calling in the howitzers to dispose of a gnat.
Although not a model of clarity in this respect, the provisions of Chapter 337 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes appear to have provided an administrative remedy, at least since 1978, by which statutory violations might be remedied. This Court so recognized in Early v. Campbell County Fiscal Court, Ky.App., 690 S.W.2d 398 (1985), (discretionary review denied and ordered published June 26,1985). Nothing in this Chapter seems to me to be intended to foreclose any citizen from filing a common law action for breach of contract. In the present case, however, it is quite obvious that the appellant did not intend to file such an action. A reading of his complaint quickly discloses that his claim is one ex statute rather than ex contractu. For example, it alleges that the appellant was an employee and the appellees were employers within the meaning of a number of sections of Chapter 337. It alleges that he earned wages as defined in that chapter, and that the appellees have refused to pay him in violation of KRS 337.055 and .060, and that “by operation of KRS 337.055 and .060,” and that “by operation of KRS 337.385” he is entitled to recover the wages earned, an additional amount equal to those wages, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee. I find not so much as a word about any promise to pay or breach of that promise. In fact, the definition of “employee” contained in KRS 337.010(l)(e) referred to in the complaint includes any person “suffered or permitted to work for an employer,” regardless of a contract between employer and employee.
Courts ought not to be hasty to “consti-tutionalize” every dispute which comes down the path. The order of the Fayette Circuit Court should be affirmed.