Opinion ID: 2630997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hawai`i Wage Payment Act (HRS chapter 388)

Text: HRS § 388-3(a) (1993) specifically mandates that, [w]henever an employer [ [35] ] discharges an employee either with or without cause, the employer shall pay the employee's wages [ [36] ] in full at the time of discharge or if the discharge occurs at a time and under conditions which prevent an employer from making immediate payment, then not later than the working day following discharge. (Emphasis added.) ILWU  for the first time on appeal  argues that, under HRS chapter 388, Receiver Park, as an employer, was required to pay the Hotel employees' their unpaid wages and accrued benefits, including those earned before the Receiver's appointment, upon their termination. As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument [at the circuit court level], that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this rule applies in both criminal and civil cases. Kemp v. State of Hawai`i Child Support Enforcement Agency, 111 Hawai`i 367, 391, 141 P.3d 1014, 1038 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(iii) (2007) (noting that an appellant's opening brief shall state where in the record the alleged error was objected to or the manner in which the alleged error was brought to the attention of the court or agency); HRS § 641-2 (Supp.2006) (The appellate court . . . need not consider a point that was not presented in the trial court in an appropriate manner.). There are sound reasons for the rule. It is unfair to the [circuit] court to reverse on a ground that no one even suggested might be error. It is unfair to the opposing party, who might have met the argument not made below. Finally, it does not comport with the concept of an orderly and efficient method of administration of justice. Querubin, 107 Hawai`i at 61 n. 5, 109 P.3d at 702 n. 5 (citation omitted) (format altered). On cross-appeal, ILWU concedes that: [Hawaii Ventures] is liable to argue that [ILWU] failed to argue below statutory wage payment law as a basis to pay the employees all of their vacation and severance benefits from the Receiver's Estate. The [circuit] court, however, was informed of a statutory basis on which to award the benefits from references in both the Receiver['s] and [the Otaka Defendants'] brief[s] on the issue of severance and vacation pay. (Emphasis added.) However, the Receiver's memorandum in support of her motion for instructions regarding vacation and severance pay did not contain any discussion of HRS chapter 388, as ILWU so contends. Rather, it appears that ILWU is referring to a statement made by Receiver Park in her memorandum, i.e., that she decided to pay employees' benefits because she believed, inter alia, that failure to do so would be illegal under state law. And, with respect to the Otaka Defendants' memorandum in support of ILWU's motion to treat severance and vacation pay as administrative expenses, ILWU relies upon a single sentence contained in a footnote that noted the Receiver's above recognition of illegality under Hawai`i law. (Citing to HRS § 388-10 (Supp.2006) (regarding penalties for failure to pay wages in accordance with this chapter).) Nonetheless, in our view, such passing references are not sufficient to preserve ILWU's argument for appeal. Clearly, the record reflects that ILWU failed to properly raise the instant argument relating to HRS chapter 388 before the circuit court. Accordingly, this argument has not been preserved for appeal, and we decline to address it.