No. 86-391
INTHE SUPREMECOURTOF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1987

JOHN G. CHRISTIANSEN, PlaintiffandAppellant,-vsTAYLOR BROTHERS, INC., aMontana corporation, Defendantand Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth JudicialDistrict, 

### In and for the County of Cascade, TheHonorableJoel

### G. Roth,Judgepresiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
ForAppellant:
James J. Screnar, Bozeman,Montana
For Respondent: Clary & Clary; Thomas H. Clary,Great Falls, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Dec. 

### 4, 1986 Decided: 

### February 13, 

### 1987

Filed: 

## FEB13

## 1987Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinionof the Court.

John 

### G. Christiansen (Christiansen)appeals the June 17, 1986, order of the Eighth Judicial District Court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Taylor Bros., Inc. We affirm. There is no controversy concerning the facts relevant to this appeal. Christiansen was an employee of Taylor Bros. fromMarch 1, 1981,through the end of December 1982. At the request of several employees, including Christiansen, the employer entered into a written contract to withhold a specific percent of those employees' wages for distribution at a later time. Five percent of all amounts earned were to be paid the employee on the first day of December of each calendar year. 

### If the employee left his job before December 1 for any reason other than disability or death, he was to forfeit the five percent retained by the employer. Three percent of all amounts earned were to be paid at the end 

### of eachyear,apparently in lieu ofvacationpay. Christiansen acknowledged in the lower court that Taylor Bros. entered into the agreement at the request of the employees. He further acknowledged that he received all monies withheld. for him under the agreement and that he voluntarily terminated his employment. On April 1,1983,Christiansen filed a complaint against Taylor Bros. alleging failure to pay over $5,000 in back wages due and owing, the illegal withholding of eightpercent of his wages due and payable and the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Taylor Bros. filed
amotion forpartial summary judgmentAugust 21, 1985,on the issue ofwhether Taylor Bros. illegally withheld a percentage of Christiansen's wages. Following numerous procedural

### maneuverings, the trial judge determined there to be no public policy against withholding wages at an employee's request. Partial summary judgment was entered for Taylor Bros.On appeal, Christiansen contends the withholding violates Montana's Wages and Wage Protection Act, §§ 

### 39-3-101,et seq., MCA. Specifically, § 

### 39-3-204(1), MCA, states: Every employer of labor in the state of 

### Montana shallpay to each employee the wages earned by such employee in lawful money of the United States or checks on banks convertible into cash on demand at the full face value thereof,and noperson for whom labor has been performed may withhold from any employee any wages earned or unpaid for a longer period than 10 business days after the same are due and payable. However,reasonable deductionsmay be made for board, room, and other incidentals supplied by the employer,whenever such deductions are a part of the conditions of employment, or otherdeductionsprovided forby law. Christiansen asserts that this statute should be given 

### a liberal construction favoring the employee. When the statute is construed liberally, it becomes apparent, alleges Christiansen, that the wage deduction policy is illegal. We disagree. Assuming, without deciding, that the statute should be given a liberal construction in favor of the employee,we find no violation. Christiansen requested the deductions. Section 39-3-204(1), MCA, is designed to prevent an employer from depriving an employee of wages at the employer's instigation, or for the benefit of the employer. Employers cannot deduct an employee's wages to cover expenses incurred by the employer. For example, the Montana Attorney General has ruled thatwagesmay not be set aside for damages caused by an employee's negligence, for unauthorized truck mileage or for other expenses incurred bythe employee as a result of his employment. 36 Op. Att'y. Gen. 17 (1975). Deductions voluntarily requested by the employee in his own behalf do not violate statutes such as $ 39-3-204(1), MCA. Departmentof Labor and Industryv. Asbury Metropolitan Hotel Co. (N.J. App. 1963), 194 A..2d 244. In fact, the Montana Departmentof Labor recognizes such deductions in its administrative rules. HOW DEDUCTIONS AFFECT THE REGULAR RATE

(1) Amounts deducted from cash wages 

## - general. (a) The word "deduction" is often loosely used to cover reductions in pay resulting from several causes:



# .. . (iii) Deductions authorized by the employee (such as union dues) or required by law (such as taxes and garnishments)

# . 9

### A.R.M. 24.16.2533 

### (1)(a)(iii)

# . Christiansen further contends that an employee cannot voluntarily contract tohave deductionsnot authorized by law withheld from his wages. Again, we must disagree. Christiansen cites two cases in support of his argument, State ex rel. Neiss v. District Court (1973),162Mont. 324, 511 P.2d 979,and Hoehne v. Sherrodd, Inc. (Mont. 1983), 668 P.2d 232, 40 St.Rep. 1363. However, these cases stand for the proposition that an employee cannot contract away statutory rights enacted for the benefit of the general public. State ex rel. Neiss, 162 Mont. forbids an employee to waive his right to receive a minimum wage.Minimum wage provisions exist for the benefit of the whole public and a claimant of his own accord may not bargain away his statutory minimum wage. It is elementary that a law established for a public reason cannot be compromised by private

### agreement. Section 49-105, R.C.M. 

### 1947. [Now 

### 5 1-3-204,MCA.] 

### Hoehne ensures that an employee receives all overtime wages to which he is entitled. There is no public policy against allowing an employee to voluntarily request that a certain percentage of his wages be set aside for payment at a later date, a type of self-imposed savings plan. Therefore, the contract provisionsproviding for the deductions at issue are valid. The decision of the lower court is affirmed.

We concur: