Alaska Stat. § 23.05.140

Striking employees are terminated under § 23.05.140 when their employer hires permanent replacements, triggering the three-working-day payment requirement and penalties for late payment.

United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 1496 ex rel. Morton v. D & A Supermarkets, Inc. · filed 1984-09-07(b), (d)

Accordingly, we hold that the striking employees in the case at bar were terminated for the purposes of § 140 when D & A hired permanent replacements. Thus in the factual context of this case these employees were entitled to the penalties provided for in AS 23.05.140(d).

Section 23.05.140(b) gives an employer three working days after termination to pay wages; a claim for nonpayment arises when that deadline passes.

Reed v. Municipality of Anchorage · filed 1987-09-04(b)

Under AS 23.05.140(b), the Municipality had until Monday, April 5, 1982, three working days after it terminated Reed, to pay him his due compensation. If the Municipality failed to do so, it became liable upon the statute, and Reed would have two years — until April 5, 1984 —to bring suit on his claim of violation of AS 23.05.140(b).

Section 23.05.140(b) requires an employer to pay all wages and other compensation due within three working days after employment ends.

Dayhoff v. Temsco Helicopters, Inc. · filed 1989-05-05(b)

When an employee’s job terminates, his employer must pay all wages and other compensation due within three working days. AS 23.05.140(b).

An employer satisfies subsection (b) by tendering a terminated employee’s final paycheck within three working days of termination.

French v. Jadon, Inc. · filed 1996-02-09(b)

Chilkoot’s timely tendered the final paycheck to French within three working days of termination.

Section 23.05.140(b) places the duty to pay wages within three working days of termination on the employer, even when another employee hired the worker and failed to pay.

Lowery v. McMurdie · filed 1997-09-05(b)

As DeBerry’s employer, it was McMurdie, and not Lowery, who ultimately had the duty to pay DeBerry’s wages within three days of termination. ... The fact that it was his employee, Lowery, who neglected to do so does not shift the ultimate duty for this failure from McMurdie onto Lowery.

Section 23.05.140(b) requires payment of wages due at termination; the underlying ordinance or agreement determines which wages are due.

Bruns v. Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Water & Wastewater Utility · filed 2001-06-01(b)

As we held in Reed and Quinn, claims under AS 28.05.140 are to be construed as claims under the underlying authority that defines what wages are due.

Section 23.05.140(d)'s wage penalty does not increase the amount recoverable through a mechanic's or wage lien.

Mitchell v. Smith · filed 1987-09-04(d)

There is no basis for claiming that the penalty provision of AS 23.05.140(d) was intended to expand the amount of a lien established under AS 34.35.435, that being “the amount due or owing under the contract or agreement.”

Section 23.05.140(d) leaves the wage penalty to the trial court’s discretion; the absence of intentional withholding supports denying it.

Klondike Industries Corp. v. Gibson · filed 1987-10-06(d)

The award of a penalty under this section is within the sound discretion of the trial court. The court found no evidence that Beaux intentionally withheld wages due. Therefore, the court denied the penalty claim. We see no abuse of discretion here.

Section 23.05.140(d) allows a trial court to impose a discretionary penalty if an employee prevails on a wage claim.

Metcalfe Investments, Inc. v. Garrison · filed 1996-06-28(d)

If Garrison prevails on her wage claim at trial, the trial court has the discretion to impose a statutory penalty pursuant to AS 23.05.140(d).

Section 23.05.140(d) gives the trial court discretion to impose a penalty when an employer fails to pay final wages on time.

Hallam v. Holland America Line, Inc. · filed 2001-08-03(d)

Because the issue of Holland America's good faith bears on the penalty issue, we also vacate the denial of a penalty. The court may revisit the penalty issue on remand if it finds a violation. We note that penalties under AS 28.05.140...are not mandatory and that refusal to apply a penalty is within the trial court's discretion.

Section 23.05.140 requires at least a demand for early payment before an employee can claim a penalty for a seasonal bonus scheduled by contract for payment after termination.

Hallam v. Holland America Line, Inc. · filed 2008-04-18(d)

That contract term does not implicate the interests that the legislature sought to protect in enacting AS 23.05.140. Thus, the trial court did not err in its determination that Hallam and the class members were required at the least to make ... a demand for premature payment of the seasonal bonus.

Section 23.05.140(d) permits wage payment penalties for coastwise seamen because its application is compatible with federal maritime law.

Sewell v. M/V POINT BARROW · filed 1983-02-08(d)

I conclude that application of A.S. 23.05.-140 to coastwise seamen is compatible with federal maritime law. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the seamen’s claims for wages and for penalties under A.S. 23.05.140 is GRANTED.

Section 23.05.140(d) imposes a punitive wage penalty for an employer's failure to pay wages promptly after termination, but the penalty cannot be assessed against a vessel in rem.

Boyd Porter v. O.S. Shypoke · filed 1992-09-15(d)

The statute on its face applies only against an employer and thus does not impose in rem liability. Furthermore, the statute is punitive and cannot be applied against a vessel in rem. ... The statutory wage enhancement provided by section 23.05.140(d) is punitive and, consequently, cannot be assessed against the SHYPOKE in rem.

Section 23.05.140 provides an independent right to unpaid wages and statutory penalties that is not preempted by the LMRA when the claim can be resolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowski · filed 1999-02-19

Alaska Statute 23.05.140 confers on an employee an independent statutory right that requires no CBA interpretation to adjudicate.

A terminated employee may seek all unpaid overtime under subsection (b), but that claim does not revive separate claims barred by the Alaska Wage and Hour Act’s limitations period.

Quinn v. Alaska State Employees Ass'n/American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 52 · filed 1997-08-29(b)

Under either AS 23.05.140(b) or a breach of contract theory, Quinn is entitled to seek recovery of the entire amount of unpaid overtime allegedly due.

Section 23.05.140 requires payment of a terminated worker’s back wages within three days, but it does not override the limitation periods for overtime claims under the AWHA or FLSA.

Bliss v. Bobich · filed 1998-11-06

And citing AS 23.05.140, which entitles all terminated workers to be paid in full for back wages within three days of termination, the Blisses reason that they became entitled to their full unpaid overtime wages upon termination, regardless of the AWHA’s statute of limitation. These claims are both meritless. Because the Blisses pursued their overtime claims under the FLSA and the AWHA, the specific statutes of limitation set out in those acts governed their causes of action.

A claim for violation of subsection (b) is outside the Alaska Wage and Hour Act and is subject to Civil Rule 82 attorney's fees.

Diaz v. Silver Bay Logging, Inc. · filed 2002-09-27(b)

But two of Diaz's claims were not covered by the AWHA. These were claims for breach of contract and for violation of AS 23.05.140(b). Civil Rule 82 applies to these claims.