Explaining the ambiguities that can arise over the word “or” in a statute–does it mean A or B or both (inclusive) or A or B but not both (exclusive), this decision holds that a statute providing for vicarious liability of a general contractor for a sub’s failure to comply with public works apprentice hiring requirements was inclusive so a showing that one alternative basis for liability (knowledge of the sub’s violation) was enough to support the imposition of penalties on the contractor.