Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

The following changes were made to the regulations:

• WAC 296-126-001 was updated to clarify language, delete the reference to the Industrial Welfare Committee, and add notes referring public employers to RCW 49.12.005(3) and employers to the variance rule in WAC 296-126-130.

• WAC 296-126-002 definitions were revised as follows:
  • “Employer” was updated to reflect the amended definition in chapter 49.12 RCW;
  • “Employee” was clarified by restating the exemptions from the definition;
  • “Adult” was updated by deleting “of either sex”;
  • “Minor” was updated by deleting “of either sex”;
  • “Committee” was deleted since the Industrial Welfare Committee no longer exists; and
  • “Department” and “Director” were added to be consistent with chapter 49.12 RCW.

• WAC 296-126-010 was updated by deleting outdated language that refers to the adult minimum wage as $1.80 an hour. In addition, language was added to address the payment of sub-minimum wage rates under special certificates issued by L&I.

• WAC 296-126-015 was revised to add a new section that explains how to calculate wage rates under special certificates.

• WAC 296-126-030(8) was modified by replacing the term “deductions” with “adjustments” in order to be consistent with other rules.

• WAC 296-126-040 was updated to clarify the requirements for employee pay stubs. The revised regulation requires that employee pay stubs be provided in “a separate written statement from the paycheck.” In addition, the revised regulation clarifies that pay stubs “may be furnished or made available electronically provided each employee has access to receive and copy it on the payday.”

• WAC 296-126-050 was updated to clarify the requirement that, upon receiving a written request from a former employee, an employer must furnish a signed written statement stating the reasons for and effective date of the employee’s discharge within 10 days of the former employee’s request. A note was also added to the regulation explaining that additional recordkeeping requirements are stated in WAC 296-128-010 through 296-128-030.

• WAC 296-126-060 was repealed to eliminate duplicative language requiring an employer of minors to obtain a work permit (the requirement is already provided in chapter 296-125 WAC).

• WAC 296-126-080 was revised to add the specific title of the poster employers are required to keep.

• WAC 296-126-090 was revised to replace the term “industrial welfare committee” with “department” in order to be consistent with RCW 43.22.280 and .282 and RCW 49.12.

• WAC 296-126-096 was repealed because it addressed non-wage and hour issues (manual lifting) that are already covered by the L&I Division of Safety and Health.

• WAC 296-126-130 was updated to clarify the process for employers to obtain wage and hour variances from L&I.

This entry was written by Douglas E. Smith.

Image credit: Dbenbenn.

The court of appeal reversed the punitive damages award on two grounds. First, the court held that the Labor Code statutes regulating pay stubs (§ 226), minimum wages (§ 1197.1), meal breaks (§ 512) and rest breaks all create new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law. Those statutes also established detailed remedial schemes for the rights they created. Accordingly, the court concluded that those Labor Code provisions fell within the long-standing “new right-exclusive remedy” doctrine, which provides that “where a statute creates new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law, the express statutory remedy is deemed to be the exclusive remedy available for statutory violations, unless it is inadequate.” The plaintiff did not raise, and the court did not address, the question of under what circumstances a statutory remedy would be deemed inadequate. 

The court also noted that punitive damages are ordinarily limited to actions “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” Although the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal/rest breaks and improper wage statements were all based upon statutory provisions, the statutory provisions apply only when the parties have entered into an employment contract and are therefore obligations “arising from the employment contract.” Accordingly, the court viewed the defendant’s violation of the Labor Code provisions as a breach of obligations arising from its employment contract with the plaintiff for which punitive damages were not available.

The good news for employers is that the court’s reasoning can be applied to a wide variety of Labor Code provisions, many of which apply only in the context of the employment relationship. 

Marlene Muraco authored this blog entry.