Opinion ID: 2745134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Bonuses Were Wages

Text: We hold that bonuses, once paid for work performed, are wages. The WRA does not define wage. To give undefined terms meaning, this court may look to dictionary definitions and related statutes. Garrison v. Wash. State Nursing Bd., 87 Wn.2d 195, 196, 550 P.2d 7 (1976) (dictionary); Oep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002) (related statutes). Ultimately, in resolving a question of statutory construction, this court will adopt the interpretation which best 6 No. 88298-3 advances the legislative purpose. Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912, 928, 784 P.2d 1258 (1990). While the WRA does not define wage, another related wage statute, the Minimum Wage Act, chapter 49.46 RCW, broadly defines wage as compensation due to an employee by reason of employment. RCW 49.46.01 0(7). Similarly, Webster's defines wage as a pledge or payment of usu. monetary remuneration by an employer esp. for labor or services usu. according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis and often including bonuses, commissions, and amounts paid by the employer for insurance, pension, hospitalization, and other benefits. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2568 (2002) (emphasis added). Washington courts have previously addressed whether bonuses are wages in only two narrow circumstances: (1) where a bonus is paid, but not for work performed, and (2) where guaranteed payment of a future bonus is implied in a contract. See, e.g., Byrne v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 108 Wn. App. 683, 692, 32 P.3d 307 (2001) (holding that television unexpectedly won in raffle by company and given to employee was not a wage because there was not sufficient testimony that television was given as compensation for work); Simon v. Riblet Tramway Co., 8 Wn. App. 289, 292-93, 505 P.2d 1291 (1973) (holding that paying employee a bonus regularly for 10 years establishes an implied agreement to pay the bonus as part of employee's earned compensation); Powell v. Republic Creosoting Co., 172 Wash. 155, 159, 19 P.2d 919 (1933) (holding that a substantial bonus paid for 11 consecutive years is sufficient to hold that future bonus money was necessarily due as compensation). However, no 7 No. 88298-3 Washington case discusses the character of bonuses already paid for work performed. LaCoursiere's bonuses are, in important respects, analogous to the promised bonus in Flower v. TR.A. Industries, Inc., 127 Wn. App. 13, 35, 111 P.3d 1192 (2005). Flower entered into an employment agreement that granted him moving expenses and a $10,000 signing bonus. /d. at 23. After moving and two months of work, the employer fired Flower and refused to pay the signing bonus. /d. at 24. Among other claims, Flower filed suit for the $10,000 signing bonus, arguing that it was due to him as a wage. After looking at the employment agreement, the court held that the signing bonus was due under the terms of the agreement and not subject to repayment of any sort. Noting that wages are moneys due 'by reason of employment,' the court held further that [t]here [was] no doubt that the bonus was to be paid 'by reason of employment.' /d. at 34-35 (quoting Hayes v. Trulock, 51 Wn. App. 795, 806, 755 P.2d 830 (1988) (quoting RCW 49.46.01 0(2))). The bonuses in Flower and in this case were not purely gratuitous. The bonus in Flower was paid in exchange for the employment; LaCoursiere's bonuses were paid for his work performance. Both bonuses were due by reason of employment. While CamWest maintained the discretion to give the bonus in the first place, once CamWest paid LaCoursiere the bonus based on his work performance, that bonus became a wage that LaCoursiere was entitled to receive from his employer, and which the employer is obligated to pay. Carter, 18 Wn.2d at 621. The only difference is that the bonus in Flower was not yet paid and LaCoursiere's bonuses were already paid. 8 No. 88298-3 But this difference only makes it more certain that LaCoursiere's bonuses were wages-they were most certainly earned for work performed. Therefore, we hold that LaCoursiere's bonuses were wages because the bonuses were already paid for work performed. This interpretation gives effect to the legislature's intent to protect money due to employees and comports with the broad definition of wage.