Opinion ID: 2633945
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Superior Court Correctly Rejected Hallam's Claim for Damages Under AS 23.05.140.

Text: Hallam alleges that Holland America failed to pay seasonal bonuses to him and other members of the class within the statutorily prescribed period, thereby entitling them to damages. He relies on AS 23.05.140 and its directive that employers pay terminated employees within three working days to support his claim for damages. [22] Hallam argues that Judge Thompson erred in reading the pay period statute to require that employees make a demand for wages in order to maintain a claim under the statute. Alaska Statute 23.05.140 mandates that where an employer terminates a worker, regardless of the cause for the termination, payment is due within three working days after the termination. [23] The statute proceeds to define the penalty for an employer failing to pay within the time required as the amount of the employee's regular wage, salary, or other compensation from the time of demand to the time of payment, or for 90 working days, whichever is the lesser amount. [24] Hallam argues that Holland America paid seasonal bonuses to him and to other employees long after the statutorily mandated three days had passed. [25] Consequently, he seeks damages for a class defined as employees who did not receive timely final bonus paychecks. We agree with the superior court's conclusion that AS 23.05.140 affords Hallam no relief. The superior court ruled that Hallam and the other class members could not bring claims under AS 23.05.140 unless they had made a demand, reasoning that it would be unjustified to penalize Holland America based on the company's regular established practice of paying bonuses in the fall and beyond three days after the end of the summer tourist season absent a demand for earlier payment. Here, it is important to note that Holland America did not withhold hourly wages beyond three days after Hallam's termination. Instead it paid a bonus in accordance with a straightforward contractual term providing for that incentive bonus to be paid by October 31st. That contract term does not implicate the interests that the legislature sought to protect in enacting AS 23.05.140. Thus, the trial court did not err in its determination that Hallam and the class members were required at the least to make a demand for premature payment of the seasonal bonus. [26]