No. 86-391 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

JOHN G. CHRISTIANSEN, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vsTAYLOR BROTHERS, INC., 

a Montana corporation, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

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: FEB 1 3 1987 
Mr. 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. 

from March 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 

each year, apparently in lieu of vacation pay. 

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 eight percent 

of his wages due and payable and the breach of the implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Taylor Bros. filed 

a motion for partial summary judgment August 21, 1985, on the 

issue of whether 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 

shall pay 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 no person 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 deductions may be 

made for board, room, and other incidentals 

supplied by the employer, whenever such deductions 

are a part of the conditions of employment, or 

other deductions provided for by 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 that wages may not be set 

aside for damages caused by an employee's negligence, for 

unauthorized truck mileage or for other expenses incurred by 
the 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. Department of Labor and Industry v. Asbury Metropolitan 

Hotel Co. (N.J. App. 1963), 194 A..2d 244. In fact, the 

Montana Department of 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 to have deductions not 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), 162 Mont. 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 provisions providing for the deductions at issue are 

valid. 

The decision of the lower court is affirmed. 

We concur: