Court Opinion

ID: 9519225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:11:36.906252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:08.530282
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
GARRARD, J.
While I concur with the majority opinion, I believe a further word may assist in explaining our holding and its impact.
As I view it, the significance of Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Narcowich (1951), 121 Ind. App. 600, 99 N.E.2d 268, is to give effect to the statutory requirement that the demand for semi-monthly or bi-weekly payment of wages must precede the work period for which liability is later asserted. There must be a demand for payment according to the statute, and liability cannot be posited for wages earned before the demand was made.
Secondly, to comport with Superior Laundry Co. v. Rose (1923), 193 Ind. 138, 137 N.E. 761 the statute permits the parties to agree to a different form of payment. Had the evidence established that Page expressly contracted with American (either individually or by becoming a member of a collective bargaining unit whose employment contract expressly provided when wages were to be paid) as to when his wages were payable during his employment by American, that agreement would survive his transfer to Indiana and preclude him from invoking the statute. Such a result would be required to preserve the freedom of contract that the statute is designed to protect.
However, the collective bargaining agreement was silent as to when wages were payable, and the evidence supported a finding of no ex*15press agreement between Page and American which would cover his employment in Indiana. Under these circumstances the public policy of the Indiana wage statute became applicable when Page became “an Indiana employee.” Since he had no express agreement as to when wages were payable, he was eligible to invoke the statute.
Note — Reported at 373 N.E.2d 928.