Ash v. Ravens Metal Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 21682,21682 |
| Citation | 190 W.Va. 90,437 S.E.2d 254 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2828, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1192 Gilbert D. ASH, et al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. RAVENS METAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee. |
1. Syllabus Point 5, In re Boso, 160 W.Va. 38, 231 S.E.2d 715 (1977).
2. W.Va.Code 21-5-4(e), prescribes a mandatory requirement that liquidated damages are to be paid whenever an employer fails to pay an employee wages as required under W.Va.Code 21-5-4.
3. "An employee who succeeds in enforcing a claim under W.Va.Code Chapter 21, article 5 should ordinarily recover costs, including reasonable attorney fees unless special circumstances render such an award unjust." Syllabus Point 3, Farley v. Zapata Coal Corp., 167 W.Va. 630, 281 S.E.2d 238 (1981).
4. "The mere fact that W.Va.Code, 21-5-4, relates to matters which may be the subject of collective bargaining does not mean that the terms of this statute are preempted by virtue of Section 301 of the [Labor Management Relations Act], 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1947)." Syllabus Point 5, Lowe v. Imperial Colliery Co., 180 W.Va. 518, 377 S.E.2d 652 (1988).
5. An arbitration clause of a collective bargaining agreement cannot nullify the statutory rights given to employees under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W.Va.Code, 21-5-1, et seq.
The plaintiffs below, Gilbert D. Ash, et al., are 149 former employees of the defendant below, Ravens Metal Products, Inc. (Ravens). Suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Wirt County on behalf of 108 of the employees contending that the defendant refused to pay them "vacation pay" they had earned prior to the initiation of a lengthy strike during which the employees were terminated from their employment. The trial court rejected the employer's arguments that the vacation pay dispute was not governed by West Virginia law, but rather by federal labor relations law, and therefore ordered the employer to remit any earned vacation pay to the employees.
The employees appeal, however, on the grounds that the trial court: (1) incorrectly calculated the vacation pay owed to the employees; (2) declined to order liquidated damages pursuant to W.Va.Code, 21-5-1, et seq.; (3) declined to order attorney's fees for the employees; (4) neglected to rule on the status of the claims of twenty of the employees; and (5) refused to join forty-one of the employees to the suit by way of amendment. Ravens, on the other hand, cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it: (1) applied the Wage Payment and Collection Act, W.Va.Code, 21-5-1, et seq., to the facts of this case; (2) rejected its argument that the vacation pay dispute was the subject of a previous settlement agreement between the parties; and (3) rejected Ravens' argument that the vacation pay dispute was governed by the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by the union representing the employees and in effect at the time the vacation pay was earned.
The employees, union members, commenced a strike against Ravens on September 22, 1989. After protracted negotiations between the employees' union and Ravens failed to result in a new contractual agreement, Ravens terminated the employment of all the striking employees and hired permanent replacement workers. At the time the strike commenced, the employees had been employed under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement whereby they earned a specified amount of vacation time with pay by working at least one thousand hours during the preceding year. Thus, at the time of the strike in September of 1989, many of the employees of Ravens had yet to obtain their vacation pay earned the previous year, 1988. Additionally, many employees had also worked at least one thousand hours that year, 1989, and would have thereby earned vacation pay for the following year, 1990.
Shortly after commencing the strike, the employees' union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) generally contending that Ravens had "failed to pay accrued vacation pay" since the commencement of the strike. The complaint made no distinction between vacation pay earned in 1988 and vacation pay earned in 1989. This NLRB matter was disposed of by settlement agreement between a union representative and Ravens. Ravens agreed to pay the employees for vacation time earned in 1988, but not taken in 1989, in return for the union's agreement to drop the NLRB complaint. No mention was made of the dispute over vacation pay earned in 1989 to be taken in 1990. By way of a letter dated February 1, 1990, the regional director of the NLRB informed the union representative that the NLRB acknowledged the withdrawal of the union's complaint against Ravens. This letter contained no discussion of the status of the vacation pay earned in 1989 prior to the commencement of the strike and to be taken in 1990.
As earlier noted, 108 of the employees joined in filing the instant case against Ravens in June of 1990. At some point thereafter the other forty-one employees requested that the suit be amended to include them. This request was apparently made to the then-counsel for the 108 original plaintiffs, but counsel failed to offer an amended complaint to the trial court.
Following Ravens' motion for summary judgment and the employees' response, the trial court entered an order on July 9, 1991, denying the motion for summary judgment and granting judgment for the employees. The trial court held, as a matter of law, that W.Va.Code, 21-5-1, et seq., was not preempted by federal labor relations law under the facts of this case. The trial court ordered Ravens to remit vacation pay, with 10 percent interest, to any of the 108 plaintiffs who had worked at least one thousand hours for the employer in 1989 prior to the commencement of the strike.
The trial court rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that they were also entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to W.Va.Code, 21-5-4 (1975). In its judgment order, the trial court requested the then-counsel for the employees to prepare an order granting the relief sought. Despite several follow-up requests by the trial court, no proposed order was tendered. Consequently, on September 22, 1992, the trial court entered the final judgment order without the aid of counsel. It is undisputed that the trial court inadvertently miscalculated the amounts owed to the employees named in the final judgment order.
In November of 1992, new counsel for the plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the judgment order on the basis that the trial court had mistakenly calculated the vacation pay owed to the employees. He also sought amendment of the complaint in order to add the forty-one employees seeking identical relief. The trial court's rulings on those issues are not in the record.
The employees argue that the trial court erred when it miscalculated the amounts owed to them for vacation pay in its order dated September 22, 1992. Ravens acknowledges that the trial court miscalculated those damages. This miscalculation apparently occurred because the trial court was not supplied with sufficient information to accurately make the wage calculations. Moreover, the trial court appears to have neglected naming several of the employees involved in the suit in its award of damages. 1 Because both parties have acknowledged the wage calculation problem, we apply Syllabus Point 5 of In re Boso, 160 W.Va. 38, 231 S.E.2d 715 (1977), in this nonjury case:
The employees also contend that the trial court erred when it denied their claims for liquidated damages pursuant to W.Va.Code 21-5-4(e), which states, in pertinent part:
"If a person, firm or corporation fails to pay an employee wages as required under this section, such person, firm or corporation shall, in addition to the amount due, be liable to the employee for liquidated damages in the amount of wages at his regular rate for each day the employer is in default, until he is paid in full, without rendering any service therefor: Provided, however, that he shall cease to draw such wages thirty days after such default." (Emphasis added).
The trial court acknowledged that the statute provided for liquidated damages, but nevertheless denied those damages. The trial court reasoned that an allowance of such damages would be unfair to Ravens because the company had "strong enough possibilities of having correctly interpreted the law that they ('Ravens'), should not be penalized for standing by law they reasonably believed to be correct." However, as we discuss in Part II(A), infra, Ravens' legal position on the preemption issue could not be deemed correct in light of our decision in Lowe v. Imperial Colliery Co., 180 W.Va. 518, 377 S.E.2d 652 (1988), 2 which was decided before the employees were fired in this case.
We addressed the statutory basis for a liquidated damage claim at some length in Farley v. Zapata Coal Corporation, 167 W.Va. 630, 281 S.E.2d 238 (1981). We pointed out that liquidated damages are provided for in W.Va.Code, 21-5-4(e):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenfield v. Schmidt Baking Co., Inc.
...' [Lowe v. Imperial Colliery Co.], 180 W.Va. [518, 524], 377 S.E.2d , 658 [ (1988) ]. (Emphasis added)." Ash v. Ravens Metal Products, Inc., 190 W.Va. 90, 95, 437 S.E.2d 254, 259 (1993). With regard to the present case, we have examined numerous decisions involving § 301 pre-emption from va......
-
Tolliver v. Kroger Co.
...of what role a CBA may have in altering or limiting an employee's statutory rights. In syllabus point 5 of Ash v. Ravens Metal Products, Inc., 190 W.Va. 90, 437 S.E.2d 254 (1993) we held that "[a]n arbitration clause of a collective bargaining agreement cannot nullify the statutory rights g......
-
Bailey v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.
...With reference to the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, we concluded in syllabus point four of Ash v. Ravens Metal Products, Inc., 190 W.Va. 90, 437 S.E.2d 254 (1993), that "`[t]he mere fact that W.Va.Code, 21-5-4, relates to matters which may be the subject of collective barga......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Smith
...We believe much the same is true in Mr. Smith's case. Section 301 preemption was also the primary issue in Ash v. Ravens Metal Products, Inc., 190 W.Va. 90, 437 S.E.2d 254 (1993). In Ash, former employees of the defendant, Ravens Metal Products, Inc., filed a suit contending that the defend......