Opinion ID: 1319691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: calculation of wages due

Text: Appellants contend the District Court erred in computing the amount of wages due them under the MWOCA. The errors alleged concern the trial lower court's treatment of wages received by Ruth Sink. Appellants assert that from 1971 through 1974 Ruth Sink's wages were deducted from Harland Sink's wages and that therefore she actually was not paid for her work and Harland Sink's hourly wage rate was underestimated by an amount equal to Ruth Sink's wages divided by the number of hours Harland Sink worked. Respondents maintain that, although an addendum to a 1971 contract between the parties stated that Ruth Sink's wages were to be deducted from Harland Sink's wages, the evidence on the whole did not show that that in fact happened. The evidence is undisputed that the School District contracted to pay Ruth Sink a sum of $485.60 for the services she rendered from 1971 through 1974. The evidence is also undisputed that an addendum to a 1971 contract between Harland Sink and the School District indicated Ruth Sink's wages were to be deducted from Harland Sink's salary. The evidence conflicts as to whether the 1972-73 and 1973-74 contracts included similar provisions. Nevertheless, the District Court properly recognized, in calculating wages due Ruth Sink, that the contract provision providing for her wages to be offset was not adhered to and she was in fact paid in addition to her husband. The trial court found that Ruth Sink was paid $485.60 over the course of her employment. The trial court committed no error in incorporating this finding into its calculation of wages currently due Ruth Sink. Likewise the trial court's calculations regarding the amount due Harland Sink are proper. The court did not find that Ruth Sink's salary had been deducted from the amount Harland Sink was to receive under his contract. In fact Harland Sink's answers to respondents' interrogatories show that the actual total wages received by Harland Sink were: 1971 (6 months) $2,591.22 1972 $5,858.10 1973 $6,738.56 1974 (6 months) $3,369.24 __________ Total Amount $18,557.42 __________ Defendants' answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories show that the parties contracted the following amounts for Harland Sink's custodial and bus driving services: CUSTODIAL DRIVING TOTAL 1971-72 $3,383.04 $2,025.00 $5,408.04 1972-73 $3,569.16 $2,848.50 $6,417.66 1973-74 $3,747.60 $2,990.96 $6,738.56 __________ Total Amount $18,564.26 ========== While it is not apparent what accounts for the $6.84 discrepancy between the three year totals, the evidence clearly shows that there is not a $485.60 deficiency between the amount Harland Sink received as wages and the amount he was obliged to receive under contract with the School District. Finding no evidentiary basis for appellants' allegation the trial court's findings and calculations will not be disturbed on appeal.