Opinion ID: 2152784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: applicability of nebraska wage payment and collection act

Text: The City contends the trial court erred in awarding plaintiffs attorney fees pursuant to the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-1228 et seq. (Reissue 1998). Section 48-1231 of the act provides in relevant part: An employee having a claim for wages which are not paid within thirty days of the regular payday designated or agreed upon may institute suit for such unpaid wages in the proper court. If an employee establishes a claim and secures judgment on the claim, such employee shall be entitled to recover (1) the full amount of the judgment and all costs of such suit and (2) if such employee has employed an attorney in the case, an amount for attorney's fees assessed by the court, which fees shall not be less than twenty-five percent of the unpaid wages. The City claims the act is inapplicable in the present case. In support of this argument, the City cites the definition of the term wages included in § 48-1229, the definitional section of the act. Section 48-1229(4) provides: Wages shall mean compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, including fringe benefits, when previously agreed to and conditions stipulated have been met by the employee, whether the amount is determined on a time, task, fee, commission, or other basis. Wages shall include commissions on all orders delivered and all orders on file with the employer at the time of termination of employment less any orders returned or canceled at the time suit is filed. The City asserts that in order for the act to apply, wages must be `previously agreed to,' and that because in the present case there is no agreement that the plaintiffs are to be paid at the city maintenance foreman II level, the act does not apply. Brief for appellant at 19. In support of its contention, the City cites Freeman v. Central States Health & Life Co., 2 Neb.App. 803, 515 N.W.2d 131 (1994). In Freeman, the Court of Appeals determined that the act did not apply to claims bought by two employees against their employer for failure to pay overtime wages. The Court of Appeals determined that because there was no previous agreement calling for payment of overtime wages, the act did not apply. 2 Neb.App. at 807, 515 N.W.2d at 135. The situation in the present case is distinguishable from that in Freeman. In the present case, although the City did not agree to pay plaintiffs at the rate of pay for the CMF II classification, the City did agree to pay plaintiffs at the appropriate rate of pay for the duties they were performing. There is no dispute that plaintiffs were employees of the City and were subject to the job classification plan and the corresponding pay ranges. The Omaha Mun.Code, ch. 23, art. III, § 23-115 (1980) provides that the personnel director shall be charged with the responsibility for the proper continued administration of the classification plan so that it will reflect the duties being performed by each employee in the classified service. The Code further provides that the personnel director shall develop a recommended compensation or pay plan for all positions in the classified service, which shall be based upon the position classification plan and adhere to the general principle of like pay for like work. Omaha Mun.Code, ch. 23, art. III, § 23-141 (1980). These ordinances, as well as the pay rate schedule admitted into evidence, demonstrate that the City did agree to pay plaintiffs at the proper pay range for the work they were performing. The City's contention that there was no agreement between plaintiffs and the City to pay plaintiffs appropriate wages making the act inapplicable is without merit.