Opinion ID: 574924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Applicability of the Statute.

Text: 10 ACS's primary contention is that La.R.S. 23:631 et seq. is not applicable to the payment of the bonus. ACS makes two arguments in support of its position. The first argument is that a bonus is not wages as that term is used in the statute. In support of this argument, ACS refers to several cases holding that a bonus is not covered by the statute because it is not wages. 4 11 The second argument is that the bonus was not a part of the employment contract between Mr. Batiansila and ACS, and therefore is not covered by the statute. In Rutledge v. CRC Holston, Inc., 5 the court held that a bonus that was not part of the contract of employment was not covered by the statute, which refers to amounts due under the contract of employment. 12 Mr. Batiansila argues that ACS waived these arguments by failing to raise them below. After searching the record, this Court agrees that ACS failed to raise these arguments below. The only issue that ACS raised below with regard to this claim was whether Mr. Batiansila had indeed fulfilled all of the requirements for the bonus (or more precisely, what those requirements were). 13 This Court usually refuses to consider issues not raised before the trial court. An exception is often made when the new issue raises a pure question of law, and failure to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice. If, however, consideration of the newly raised issue in the trial court would have resulted in additional facts being developed there, the rationale for the application of the general rule applies, and the issue will not be considered by the appellate court. 6 14 In the present case, the issue of whether the bonus is covered by the statute is not a pure question of law. While it might be a question of law whether a bonus qualifies as wages, it is a question of fact whether the bonus was intended to be part of the employment contract. 7 Had ACS raised this issue below, the parties could have introduced evidence as to whether the memorandum announcing the bonuses was intended to become part of the contract. 15 Since this issue was not raised below, this Court is in no position to determine whether the bonus was part of the contract of employment. To do so at this juncture would be extremely prejudicial to the plaintiff, who had no reason to put on any relevant evidence below. This Court will not address the issue. 16