Opinion ID: 2638938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Wage Offsets

Text: [¶43] At the contested case hearing, Diamond B Services claimed that Mr. Rohde owed it money for various reasons and it was, therefore, entitled to deduct those amounts from his paychecks under the Department's wage offset rules. In particular, Diamond B Services argued that it was entitled to deduct money from Mr. Rohde's paychecks as reimbursement for: 1) unauthorized fuel purchases for his personal pickup ($1,420.90); 2) Diamond B Services purchase of license plates for Mr. Rohde's personal pickup ($72.33); 3) auto parts purchased by Mr. Rohde on Diamond B Services accounts and installed on his personal pickup or the vehicles of his family and friends ($577.91); 4) the payoff of Mr. Rohde's truck loan ($3,330.07); and 5) loss of a tool box ($313.30). [6] The hearing officer ruled that, under the Department's wage offset rules, Diamond B Services was not entitled to any of these wage offsets. Diamond B Services argues that the Department misapplied the wage offset rules when it refused to allow the offsets it claimed. [¶44] Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-4-104(a) the employer may offset from any monies due the employee as wages, any sums due the employer from the employee which have been incurred by the employee during his employment. The Department adopted Chapter I, Section 6 of the Department of Employment Labor Standards Rules to provide rules and procedures for wages offsets. The wage offset rules state in pertinent part: (b) Offsets. The following sums shall constitute proper offsets from wages due an employee.    (v) Any sums deducted from wages as payment for any purchase of goods or services by the employee from the employer, provided: (A) That the goods or services sold by the employer are sold in the ordinary course of his or her business. (B) That the employee has actual or constructive possession of the goods or services purchased; and (C) That the employee's purchase is evidenced by the employee's written acknowledgement. (vi) Any sums deducted from wages for damages suffered by the employer due to the employee's negligence, provided: (A) That the employee's negligence is determined by a judicial proceeding; (B) That the amount of the damage suffered by the employer is determined by a judicial proceeding; (C) That the negligence and damages arise in the course of the employment; and (D) That the employer has not received payments, compensation, or any form of restitution from any insurer, assurer, surety or guaranty to cover any of the damages. Where the employer has received payments, compensation, or any form of restitution from any insurer, assurer, surety or guaranty to cover any of the damages caused by the employee's negligence, the sum of the offset shall not exceed the amount of any applicable deductible or two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) whichever is less.    (viii) Any sums deducted from wages as repayment to the employer by the employee of any cash advances, loans or payments of expenses for optional benefits such as tuition assistance, relocation and training, made to the employee by such tuition assistance, relocation and training, made to the employee by such employer, provided: (A) That the cash advance, loan or payment of expenses to the employee occurred while said employee was in the employ of such employer; and (B) That the employee's receipt of such cash advance, loan or payment of expenses is evidenced by the employee's written acknowledgement.    (x) Any sums deducted as wages as payment for any purchase of tools, equipment, uniforms, or other items required for the employment of the employee, provided: (A) That the employee had actual or constructive possession of the items; and (B) That the employee's purchase and receipt of the item is evidence by written acknowledgement. (xi) Any sums deducted from wages as payment for tools, equipment, uniforms, or other items assigned to the employee by the employer, provided: (A) That such item was assigned to the employee to be used within the scope of the employee's employment; (B) That the employee gave written acknowledgement of the receipt of such items; and (C) That such items have not been returned to the employer upon termination. Department of Employment Labor Standards Rules, Chap. I, § 6.
[¶45] When he started working for Diamond B Services, the company issued Mr. Rohde a Comdata fuel card. Randy Burry testified that Mr. Rohde was only allowed to use the card to purchase diesel fuel for the large trucks used in their business. He claimed that Mr. Rohde was not authorized to purchase gasoline on the card. Mr. Rohde did, in fact, purchase gasoline for his personal pickup, which he used in the course of his employment. Mrs. Burry, who worked as the bookkeeper for the company, received a faxed report from Comdata each day which showed the transactions on the various fuel cards used by Diamond B Services. The fuel report apparently showed which card was used and the amount and cost of the fuel purchased. Mr. Rohde testified that, when he received his card, he asked Mrs. Burry whether he should turn in any of his receipts and she said, no because she received the daily Comdata reports. Nevertheless, he saved the receipts and presented them to Diamond B Services after he was discharged. [¶46] Diamond B Services contends that the hearing officer erred by refusing to allow it to deduct the value of the fuel he used in his personal pickup from Mr. Rohde's pay. Diamond B Services argued that it was entitled to offset the values of the fuel purchases from his wages because they were either cash advances under Section 6(b)(viii) or other items required for the employment of the employee under Section 6(b)(x). [¶47] Section 6(b)(viii) allows an employer to deduct the value of cash advances made to the employee during his employment. Cash is defined as money or its equivalent. Black's Law Dictionary 229 (8th ed. 1999). An advance is the furnishing of money or goods before any consideration is received in return. Id. at 57. Fuel obviously does not qualify as cash as it is not money or its equivalent. Furthermore, the definition of advance indicates that the party doing the advancing (i.e. the employer) has prior knowledge of the transaction. Diamond B Services maintained that it did not have knowledge of or authorize the fuel purchases; consequently, they could not be advances. [¶48] Neither do the fuel purchases qualify under Section 6(b)(x) as payment for any purchase of tools, equipment, uniforms, or other items required for the employment of the employee. Diamond B Services maintained that Mr. Rohde was supposed to use a company vehicle rather than his personal vehicle in the course of his employment. Under Diamond B Services' theory that the fuel purchases were not authorized, the fuel expenses do not qualify as other items required for the employment under subsection (x). The fuel could not have been purchased on the basis that it was required for the employment if the employer insisted it did not authorize the purchase.
[¶49] Diamond B Services argues that it was entitled to deduct the amount it paid to satisfy Mr. Rohde's truck loan from the wages due to him. Mr. Rohde went to work for Diamond B Casing in 1998. He testified that Randy Burry had contacted him when he was living in Grand Island, Nebraska and asked him to move to Pine Bluffs to work for Diamond B Casing. In order to entice Mr. Rohde to accept the job offer, Randy Burry agreed to pay off his pickup loan and to purchase a car from Mr. Rohde. On October 27, 1998, Mrs. Burry wrote a $3,330.07 check to Mr. Rohde's lender on a Diamond B account. Mr. Rohde did not repay Diamond B Casing, Diamond B Services, Diamond B, or the Burrys for the loan payment. [¶50] The hearing officer ruled that Diamond B Services was not entitled to deduct the amount Diamond B paid to satisfy Mr. Rohde's pickup loan from Mr. Rohde's wages. The Department rules allow an employer to deduct cash advances or payments of expenses made by the employer to, or on behalf of, the employee. However, in order to be entitled to this deduction, an employer must show that the cash advance or payment was made while the employee was employed by the employer and the employee must give his written authorization to the employer. Section 6(b)(viii). In this case, the truck loan payment was made by Diamond B in 1998, when Mr. Rohde was working for Diamond B Casing. Randy Burry claims that Diamond B was a predecessor of Diamond B Services and, therefore, it should be counted as a payment while Mr. Rohde was working for Diamond B Services. The record does not bear out Diamond B Services' claim. Clearly, Mr. Rohde was working for Diamond B Casing (which was Robert Burry's company), rather than Diamond B Services when the pickup loan was satisfied. In addition, there was no written agreement indicating that Mr. Rohde would pay back the money for the loan payment or any other type of receipt signed by the employee acknowledging receipt of the loan payment.
[¶51] Diamond B Services claimed that it was entitled to offset Mr. Rohde's wages with the amount it paid for the license plates for his personal pickup and for automobile parts he charged on the company's account and used to repair his personal vehicle and the vehicles of his friends and family. It maintains that these payments amounted to cash advances under Section 6(b)(viii). [¶52] Mr. Rohde's license plates were due for renewal at the end of December 2002. Since Diamond B Services had not paid him in quite some time, Mr. Rohde borrowed money from his father to pay for his license plates. When he told Randy Burry that he was going to go into Cheyenne to purchase his license plates, Randy Burry told him that Mrs. Burry was going to Cheyenne anyway and she would get the license plates for Mr. Rohde's truck. Mr. Rohde offered to pay for the license plates with the money he had borrowed from his father, but the Burrys declined his offer. [¶53] In addition, Mr. Rohde routinely charged parts for his work on accounts Diamond B Services carried with various auto parts dealers. He also occasionally charged parts which he used to repair his personal vehicle or the vehicles of his family and friends. Mr. Rohde testified that he had permission to charge the parts, and, when he offered to reimburse the company for those costs, he was refused. [¶54] The hearing officer determined that Diamond B Services was not entitled to an offset for the amount it paid for Mr. Rohde's license plates and the auto parts because they were not cash advances. Diamond B Services did not give cash to Mr. Rohde when it supplied him with license plates and automobile parts. Furthermore, there was substantial evidence that Diamond B Services did not expect to be reimbursed for the cost of the license plates or the automobile parts; consequently, those payments obviously were not advances.
[¶55] Diamond B Services claimed that it was entitled to deduct from Mr. Rohde's wages the value of a toolbox which was stolen from Mr. Rohde's pickup. It claims that, under § 6(b)(xi) of the offset rules, the tool box was assigned to Mr. Rohde and was not returned to Diamond B Services at the end of his employment. Mr. Rohde acknowledged that, during his employment, he had a tool box which contained Diamond B Services tools, and that it had been stolen from the back of his pickup. He claimed that he reported the theft to his personal insurer, but, when he asked Randy Burry for a list of the tools for the insurer, Randy Burry told him not to worry about it. [¶56] The hearing officer denied the offset because there was no written acknowledgement of his receipt of the tools. Included in the record is an example of Diamond B Services toolbox checklist with a place for the employee to sign, acknowledging receipt of the tools. There is, however, no such form signed by Mr. Rohde. Consequently, there was no written authorization from Mr. Rohde which would have allowed Diamond B Services to deduct the value of the tool box from his wages pursuant to § 6(b)(xi) of the Department's rules. [¶57] The hearing officer's conclusions that Diamond B Services was not entitled to any offsets against Mr. Rohde's wages were supported by substantial evidence.
[¶58] Diamond B Services argues that, in adopting the wage offset rules which require an employee's written acknowledgement before certain sums may be deducted from his wages, the Department exceeded its statutory authority. Section 27-2-104(a) outlines the Department's authority and states in pertinent part: (a) The department of employment shall: (i) Enforce all laws enacted by the legislature of Wyoming, relating to labor, wages, hours of labor, and to the health, welfare, life and limb of the workers of this state;    (v) [P]romulgate reasonable rules. [¶59] The substantive law which authorized wage offsets is included in § 27-4-104(a). The relevant language states: The employer may offset from any monies due the employee as wages, any sums due the employer from the employee which have been incurred by the employee during his employment. [¶60] Diamond B Services claims that § 27-4-104(a) allows the employer to deduct any sums it believes are due it from the employee and, by requiring written authorization from the employee before an employer may deduct amounts from his wages, the Department's rule exceeds its statutory authority. An administrative agency is limited in authority to powers legislatively delegated. `Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and their power is dependent upon statutes, so that they must find within the statute warrant for the exercise of any authority which they claim.' Amoco Production Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization , 12 P.3d 668, 673 (Wyo. 2000) (citations omitted). An agency is wholly without power to modify, dilute or change in any way the statutory provisions from which it derives its authority. Platte Development Co. v. State, Environmental Quality Council, 966 P.2d 972, 975 (Wyo. 1998). Thus, administrative agencies are bound to comply with their enabling statutes. Sears v. Romer, 928 P.2d 745, 751 (Colo.App. 1996) . An administrative rule or regulation which is not expressly or impliedly authorized by statute is without force or effect if it adds to, changes, modifies, or conflicts with an existing statute. Id. Conversely, a rule or regulation which is expressly or impliedly authorized by the enabling statute will be given force and effect. Id. Public Service Comm'n v. Formal Complaint of WWZ Co., 641 P.2d 183, 186 (Wyo. 1982) (An agency's implied powers are only those derived by necessary implication from express statutory authority granted to the agency.); Painter v. Abels , 998 P.2d 931, 938 (Wyo. 2000) (Administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law.). Billings v. Wyo. Bd. of Outfitters and Guides, 2001 WY 81, ¶24, 30 P.3d 557, 568-69 (Wyo. 2001). [¶61] The obvious purpose of the offset rules is to define, under what circumstances, monies are due to the employer from the employee pursuant to § 27-4-104(a). Clearly defining the respective responsibilities of the parties to the employment relationship serves the legislative purposes of the wage collection statutes. See Jensen , ¶21. [¶62] Under § 27-4-507(b) and § 27-4-104(b), an employer must fully and promptly pay an employee's wages as provided by the parties' employment agreement, and payment of any lower amount is unlawful. The only deductions which an employer may make from an employee's wages are those which are actually due to the employer. Requiring written authorization from the employee ensures there is a mutual understanding between the employee and employer about the deduction. This requirement, obviously, helps prevent misunderstandings between employers and employees and helps avoid situations, such as the one in this case, where the employer claims an amount is due and the employee argues otherwise. We conclude, therefore, that the wage offset rules requiring written authorization are reasonable and promulgation of the rules did not exceed the Department's statutory authority.