Court Opinion

ID: 9712914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:02:58.541984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:15.259258
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the Majority's treatment of the first issue. While I agree that an action under IC 22-2-5-2 may only be maintained for wages which are "earned" and "due and owing" at the time of discharge, I believe the award in favor of the Gosses for the thirty day notice period should be considered wages earned, and that statutory damages are appropriate in this case.
I have no quarrel with the holding of U.S. Reduction Co. v. Nussbaum (1942), 112 Ind.App. 330, 336, 42 N.E.2d 403, 405. However, the Nussbaum case is factually dissimilar to the present case. In Nussbaum, the plaintiff, employed on a month-tomonth basis, sought to recover one month's wages plus the statutory penalty despite having worked only two days into the month his employment was terminated. There was no notice provision or termination allowance at issue in Nussbaum.
The Majority embraces a narrow interpretation of the term "wages." Our courts, however, have affirmed the award of statutory penalties and attorney fees where the employer did not remit accrued vacation pay to the employee, see Baesler's Super-Valu v. Indiana Com'r of Labor (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 243; Die & Mold, Inc. v. Western (1983), Ind.App., 448 *313N.E.2d 44, and where the the employer failed to pay accumulated commissions to salespersons upon termination of employment. Licocci v. Cardinal Associates, Inc. (1986), Ind.App., 492 N.E.2d 48, trans. denied. "Wages" are defined elsewhere in Article 2 as "all amounts at which the labor or service rendered is recompensed, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or in any other method of calculating such amount." IC 22-2-9-1(b). Termination al-lowanees or wages in lieu of notice are deemed wages for the purposes of the Indiana Employment Security Act. See 640 IAC 1-7-4.
I believe wages earned by virtue of a termination period are similar to compensation as represented by accrued vacation pay. In Western, our court of appeals concluded:
Vacation pay is in the nature of deferred compensation in lieu of wages earned each week the employee works, and is payable at some later time. An agreement to give vacation pay to employees made before they perform their service, and based upon the length of service and time worked is not a gratuity but rather is in the form of compensation for services. And when the services are rendered, the right to receive the promised compensation is vested, as much as the right to receive wages or other forms of compensation.
448 N.E.2d at 46-47 (citations omitted). I believe that the Gosses earned wages for the thirty day notice period specified in the contract. Wages for the notice provision would not be considered a gratuity, as would a bonus. Instead, the wages for this period amount to compensation that became "vested" once the Gosses' employment was terminated. The Gosses were entitled to these wages by virtue of the employment contract. As such, I would hold that the wages were "earned" and "due and owing."
The Majority asserts that the failure to pay the Gosses wages for the notice period is merely a breach of contract. Strictly speaking, however, the failure to pay wages earned for a given period is also a breach of the employment contract. Nevertheless, our legislature has seen fit to create a special penalty provision for such breaches, and the provision is applicable on this occasion. I would affirm the trial court in all things.