Opinion ID: 1226450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Assignment of Wages

Text: The court below found as a matter of law that certain practices of the dealership were essentially illegal assignments of wages in violation of the Act. Among other remedial provisions, the Act limits the way an employee may assign part of his or her wages: No assignment of or order for future wages shall be valid for a period exceeding one year from the date of such assignment or order. Such assignment or order shall be acknowledged by the party making the same before a notary public or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments, and such order or assignment shall specify thereon the total amount due and collectible by virtue of the same and three fourths of the periodical earnings or wages of the assignor shall at all times be exempt from such assignment or order and no assignment or order shall be valid which does not so state upon its face. W. Va.Code ß 21-5-3 (1979). This Court has long been aware of the potential problems posed by wage assignments, which in days past often took the form of credit accounts at the company store. This Court in Western v. Buffalo Min. Co., 162 W.Va. 543, 251 S.E.2d 501(1979), recognized that the Wage Payment and Collection Act and its forbearers were drafted, in part, to rein-in the often pernicious use of wage assignments to reduce the pay of workers: Both Atkins v. Grey Eagle Coal Co., 76 W.Va. 27, 84 S.E. 906 (1915), and the later case of Holliday v. Elkhorn-Piney Coal Mining Co., 102 W.Va. 147, 134 S.E. 736 (1926), dealt with earlier versions of the statute, which had provisions requiring employers who paid wages in scrip or tokens to redeem the same in lawful money. Western, supra (emphasis added). Indeed, in examining the earlier case of Atkins v. Grey Eagle Coal Co ., we see that the reasons for regulating assignments of wages are nearly timeless. Speaking of the labor and civil unrest of the period, this Court pointed to illegal assignments of wages as a serious social problem: Some have taken the position that payment of wages by persons or corporations to their employÈs is a matter of vital concern to the general public, and that it is therefore within the power of the Legislature to prescribe the mode of payment. Hancock v. Yaden, supra [121 Ind. 366, 23 N.E. 253, 6 L.R.A. 576, 16 Am. St. Rep. 396]; [Knoxville] Iron Co. v. Harbison, supra [183 U.S. 13, 22 S.Ct. 1, 46 L.Ed. 55]. Such doubtless was the view, and, in our judgment, not an erroneous one, that prompted the enactment of the statute now being considered. Its purpose evidently was the elimination of one of the prime motives or causes alleged for the unfortunately prevalent and frequently recurring labor disputes and disturbances that have recently grievously afflicted this and other states, resulting in incalculable loss alike to employer and employÈ. Atkins v. Grey Eagle Coal Co., 76 W.Va. 27, 84 S.E. 906 (1915). The court below found that the dealership violated the Act by withholding from employees' checks any costs associated with a customer's use of a credit card. [10] The court also found that the dealership illegally deducted sums from employees' paychecks for repairs made to cars that the employees had sold. [11] Plaintiffs never executed valid wage assignments for these charges as required by the Act. The dealership argues that the deductions for credit card sales are not wage assignments, but instead reflect a calculation of the commission. We agree with the trial court and reject this argument. We have stated before that the Act demands strict adherence: The history of the Code provisions on wage assignments shows a deliberate, legislative intent to allow assignment of wages if, and only if, certain specified conditions are met. From the initial provisions allowing unfettered assignment of wages, the legislature has changed the law of West Virginia to permit only limited assignments, and then only when clearly defined legislative formalities are observed. Jones v. Tri-County Growers, Inc., 179 W.Va. 218, 222, 366 S.E.2d 726, 730 (1988). We went on underline the importance of strict compliance: Based on the legislative history of the Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va.Code, 21-5-1 et seq. [1979], compliance with all requirements of the Act is mandatory when assigning an employee's wages. Id. at Syl. Pt. 4. The Act does allow certain specific deductions to be made from employees' wages without the need for a properly executed assignment. [12] However, because we agree with the trial court that deductions made by Opequon Motors for credit card sales or automotive repairs do not fall within the narrow exceptions carved out by the Legislature, and we agree that only one reasonable verdict is possible Barefoot, supra, we must affirm the lower court's grant of a directed verdict on these counts.