Jones v. Tri-County Growers, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | TRI-COUNTY,No. 18140,18140 |
| Citation | 179 W.Va. 218,366 S.E.2d 726 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 28 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1590, 110 Lab.Cas. P 55,946 Ransford JONES, Bazil Bailey, Anthony Williams, Oral Reid, Delroy Hunter and Eric C. Campbell v.GROWERS, INC. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Matters bearing on the performance of a contract are determined by the law of the place in which the contract was to be performed.
2. "A suit by employees for recovery of money allegedly obtained under a wage assignment that violates W.Va.Code, 21-5-3 is one based on contract and the five year statute of limitations provided for in W.Va.Code, 55-2-6, is applicable." Western v. Buffalo Mining Co., 162 W.Va. 543, 251 S.E.2d 501 (1979).
3. "The West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act is remedial legislation designed to protect working people and assist them in the collection of compensation wrongly withheld." Syllabus, Mullins v. Venable, 171 W.Va. 92, 297 S.E.2d 866 (1982).
4. Based on the legislative history of the Wage Payment and Collection Act, W.Va.Code, 21-5-1 et seq [1979], compliance with all requirements of the Act is mandatory when assigning an employee's wages.
Garry G. Geffert, Martinsburg, Joseph P. Henry, Charleston, for appellants.
Clarence E. Martin, Susan R. Snowden, Martin & Seibert, Martinsburg, for appellee.
The West Virginia apple harvest season extends for a period of approximately six weeks beginning in September of each year. It is essential that apple growers have an adequate work force to pick the harvest. Historically, West Virginia orchardists have been unable to recruit sufficient workers to harvest their crop. An employer who anticipates a labor shortage of local workers may request temporary labor certification for foreign workers. Because the importation of foreign workers from countries with depressed economies would, in the absence of controls, depress the wages and working conditions of domestic workers, employers using temporary foreign workers must comply with comprehensive regulations governing the minimum terms of employment that must be offered and adhered to by the employer. 20 C.F.R. § 655.200, et seq. (1978). 1 Among these is the requirement that the employer comply with all federal and state laws relating to employment. 20 C.F.R. § 655.203(b) (1978). 2
Each year the appellee, Tri-County Growers, Inc., has obtained permission to employ foreign workers to harvest the West Virginia apple crop. Pursuant to the authority of the certification, Tri-County Growers, Inc. has traditionally entered into a "master contract"; this contract is a three party agreement among between Tri-County Growers, Inc., the workers, and Mr. H.F. Edwards, who is the agent of the government of Jamaica. In addition to this master contract, each of the workers entered into an individual contract with Jamaica and Tri-County Growers, Inc.
Pursuant to the terms of the master contract executed with Tri-County Growers, Inc., certain sums were withheld from all workers' wages. Section 6(a)(i) 3 of the master contract required three percent of wages to be paid to the Jamaican government agent as premiums for insurance or other expenses. 4 Section 6(a)(ii) 5 of the contract allowed for the deduction of the cost of meals supplied by Tri-County Growers, Inc. which was stipulated in the contract as $5.00 per day. 6 Pursuant to section 6(b) deductions were made for costs advanced by the employer for transportation. 7 Finally, pursuant to section 7 of the master contract, the workers specifically authorized the employer to deduct twenty-three percent of each worker's wages remaining after the deductions authorized in section 6 and to pay this sum to the Jamaican government's agent who, under section 11 of the contract, was to use that money to pay certain expenses. 8
The functions of these withholdings were to: (1) reimburse the employer for expenses incurred upon a worker's not returning to Jamaica at the conclusion of the contract; (2) secure expenses of repatriation, including return transportation costs; (3) repay transportation advances; (4) repay the Jamaican government for any sums advanced to the workers; and (5) provide insurance.
Pursuant to the master contract in years 1980 and 1981, the appellants entered the United States and harvested apples for Tri-County Growers. Sums were deducted from the wages of each appellant as authorized by the contract. Twenty-three percent of each appellant's gross wages were withheld as savings pursuant to Clause 7. Two percent of gross wages were withheld for unspecified insurance pursuant to Clause 6(a) of the contract. In addition, five dollars per day was withheld for board pursuant to Clause 6(a)(ii), and certain sums were withheld by the appellee and paid to a third party as reimbursement for each appellant's costs of traveling to West Virginia, pursuant to Clause 6(b). No wage withholding authorization or assignments, however, were executed by any of the appellants pursuant to W.Va.Code, 21-5-3 [1979]. In addition, the master contract bears no signature of any appellant and does not purport to have an acknowledgement of any signature.
In July 1984, the appellants filed an action in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County to enforce the restrictions on the assignment of wages and for damages under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W.Va.Code, 21-5-3 [1979]. Appellants alleged that the withholding of their wages, albeit proper under the master contract, violated the Wage Payment and Collection Act because appellees did not comply with statutory requirements.
The appellants moved for summary judgment, but the circuit court denied the motion and dismissed the action. The court held that the employment contract was in "substantial compliance" with the terms of the Wage Payment and Collection Act and that appellants' cause of action was governed by the tort statute of limitations. W.Va.Code, 55-2-12 [1959].
The appellants now assert that the circuit court erred in applying the tort statute of limitations because their cause of action is governed by the five year contract statute of limitations. W.Va.Code, 55-2-6 [1923]. Appellants also assert that any assignment of wages that does not meet the formalities of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act is invalid and that the circuit court erred when he held that "substantial compliance" with the Wage Payment and Collection Act is sufficient. We agree with appellants and reverse.
Before addressing the substantive issue in this case, we must first address two procedural issues. First, appellees assert that the validity of the contract is the issue before us, and because Jamaica is the situs of the contract's formation, the law governing this contract is Jamaican law. We disagree.
The parties concede that the contract was executed in Jamaica. However, there is no ambiguity in the terms of the contract itself. Rather, the issue is whether application of the provisions of the contract are contrary to W.Va.Code, 21-5-3 [1979]. It is also clear that performance of the contract was to take place in the State of West Virginia. "Matters bearing on the performance of a contract are determined by the law of the place in which the contract was to be performed." Scudder v. Union National Bank, 91 U.S. (1 Otto) 406, 23 L.Ed. 245 (1875); See also Tow v. Miners Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., 199 F.Supp. 926 (S.D.W.Va.1961), affirmed 305 F.2d 73 (4th Cir.1962); Kolendo v. Jerell, Inc., 489 F.Supp. 983 (S.D.Va.1980).
Although it is clear that contracts are governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the contract is made, performance in another state that violates that state's public policy does not become lawful simply because it arises under a contract made elsewhere. When matters of public policy are involved, such as authorized wage withholdings, the law of the state where the contract is to be performed governs. Poling v. Poling, 116 W.Va. 187, 179 S.E. 604 (1935); Farley v. Zapata Coal Corp., 167 W.Va. 630, 281 S.E.2d 238 (1981); Clendenin Lumber and Supply Co. v. Carpenter, 172 W.Va. 375, 305 S.E.2d 332 (1983). 9
Appellees also assert that we need not rule on any substantive issue because this cause of action sounds in tort and appellants did not file their complaint within the two year statute of limitations for tort actions under W.Va.Code, 55-2-12 [1959]. The circuit court agreed with the appellees and held that the appellants' injury, if any, sounded in tort.
However, this court has consistently held that suits brought under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act are governed by the five year statute of limitations for contract actions. Western v. Buffalo Mining Co., 162 W.Va. 543, 251 S.E.2d 501 (1979); Lucas v. Moore, 101 W.Va. 172, 303 S.E.2d 739 (1983). In Western, supra, we ruled that "a suit by employees for recovery of money allegedly obtained under a wage assignment that violates W.Va.Code, 21-5-3 is one based on contract and the five year statute of limitations provided for in W.Va.Code, 55-2-6 is applicable." 162 W.Va. at 545, 251 S.E.2d at 502. Because the complaint at issue in this case was filed in 1984, and the earliest claims occurred in 1980, the appellants' cause of action fits within the five year statute of limitations under W.Va.Code, 55-2-6 [1923].
Finally, we turn to the substantive issue presented. Did the circuit court err when he held that appellants' assignment of wages were in "substantial compliance" with the requirements of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W.Va.Code, 21-5-3 [1979]? Appellants assert that any assignment of wages that does not meet all the formalities mandated by the Act is invalid.
"The West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act is remedial legislation designed to protect working people and assist them in the collection of compensation wrongly withheld."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. Grapevine Corp.
...withholding various amounts of their pay for such items as insurance, lodging, and travel costs. See Jones v. Tri-County Growers, Inc., 179 W.Va. 218, 222-23, 366 S.E.2d 726, 730-31(1988) (holding that wage assignments of migrant workers were violative of Wage Payment and Collection Act for......
-
Grim v. E. Elec., LLC
...wrongly withheld. ’ Syllabus, Mullins v. Venable, 171 W.Va. 92, 297 S.E.2d 866 (1982).” Syl. Pt. 3, Jones et al. v. Tri–County Growers, Inc., 179 W.Va. 218, 366 S.E.2d 726 (1988) (emphasis added). The WPCA explicitly provides a private cause of action and statutory remedy when the employer ......
-
Grim v. E. Elec., LLC, 13-1133
...of compensation wrongly withheld.' Syllabus, Mullins v. Venable, 171 W.Va. 92, 297 S.E.2d 866 (1982)." Syl. Pt. 3, Jones v. Tri-County Growers, Inc., 179 W.Va. 218, 366 S.E.2d 726 (1988). 8. "The determination as to whether 'wages,' as defined in West Virginia Code § 21-5-1(c) (2013 Repl. V......
-
Johnson v. RFF Family P'ship, LP (In re Johnson), Case No. 14-57104
...the state governing the assignment, when the assignor performed at least some work in that state. Compare Jones v. Tri – Cty. Growers, Inc. , 179 W.Va. 218, 366 S.E.2d 726, 729 (1988) (“When matters of public policy are involved, such as authorized wage withholdings, the law of the state wh......