Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1

Section 22-2-5-1 covers regular, periodic wages, not a lump sum incentive payment for staying through a store closing.

Wilson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. · filed 1985-06-13

Rather, the “wages” contemplated by I.C. 22-2-5-1 are something akin to the wages paid on a regular, periodic basis for regular work done by the employee — the paycheck which compensates for the work done in the previous two weeks.

Section 22-2-5-1 covers wages for regular work paid on a periodic basis, but excludes a bonus dependent on the employer’s performance.

Jeurissen v. Amisub, Inc. · filed 1990-05-22

We are of the opinion that that definition is appropriate under the facts of this case with the result being that the HIER compensation was, as stated in the proof of claim and determined by the trial court, a bonus. Under the facts of this case the HIER plan is the "something extra" referred to in Wilson, in that it was payment which depended on the performance of the hospital in two specific areas and was not tied to regular work done on a periodic basis by an employee which would have been payable, if requested, on a twice monthly basis.

Section 22-2-5-1 treats a regularly paid bonus tied to an employee’s work as wages, even when payment is deferred.

Gurnik v. Lee · filed 1992-03-03

In short, Dickinson's bonus was paid on a regular periodic basis for her regular work, and is therefore a "wage" within the scope of Sections 1 and 2.

Section 22-2-5-1 does not treat a bonus tied to branch sales rather than the employee’s own work as wages.

Phenicie v. Bossert Industrial Supply, Inc. · filed 1996-10-02

Thus, his bonus cannot be considered wages for purposes of § 22-2-5-1.

Section 22-2-5-1 does not treat an annual profit-based bonus as wages when it cannot be computed or paid at the required semi-monthly or bi-weekly intervals.

Herremans v. Carrera Designs, Inc. · filed 1997-12-19(a)

Furthermore, Herremans’ bonus could not possibly have been paid on a semi-monthly or bi-weekly interval as mandated by the statute. As in Phenicie, this bonus could not even be computed until the end of the Carr-era’s fiscal year. Therefore, this Court holds that Herremans’ bonus is not a part of his “wages” and is not covered by the statute.

Section 22-2-5-1’s wage payment rule does not cover compensation tied to client collections and paid monthly when payment within ten days would be difficult or impossible.

Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen · filed 2007-10-18

It only takes one reason, however, and here, as in Highhouse, the disputed compensation was tied to collection rather than billing. Moreover, here, as in Highhouse, payments were made on a schedule—i.e., monthly—indicating that more frequent calculation and payment in compliance with the Wage Payment Statute’s ten-day rule would have been difficult, if not impossible. Given the rule announced in Highhouse, therefore, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court erroneously awarded damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Wage Payment Statute.

Bonuses contingent on sales or performance goals and continued employment are not wages under Section 22-2-5-1.

Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC · filed 2008-05-30

Accordingly, in light of all of the foregoing, the Court finds that the bonuses at issue in this case were not “wages” within the meaning of the Wage Payment Statute or Wage Claims statute.

Deferred compensation payments are wages under Section 22-2-5-1.

Johnson v. Wiley · filed 1993-05-17

Under the facts before the trial court, deferred compensation payments, like deferred vacation pay, are "wages" as the term is used in 1.0. 22-2-5-1 & 2.

Accrued unused sick leave is wages under § 22-2-5-1(b) when the employer's policy pays departing employees for leave earned during employment.

Schwartz v. Gary Community School Corp. · filed 2002-02-04(b)

Having concluded that Schwartz's accrued sick leave constituted "wages" under the statute, the trial court erred by not granting him liquidated damages and attorney fees.

A contractually required bonus tied to an employee's services and paid at regular intervals qualifies as wages, even when business expenses affect its amount.

Highhouse v. Midwest Orthopedic Institute, P.C. · filed 2003-02-04(b)

Therefore, the trial court erred by not granting Highhouse partial summary judgment on his claim that the Agreement's bonus payments qualified as a "wage" under the Wage Payment Statute.

A profit sharing bonus contingent on the employer’s financial success is not a wage under the Wage Payment Statute.

Whitsell v. Bradshaw Insurance Group, Inc. · filed 2004-06-15(a)-(b)

Simply put, in Indiana, it still appears to be good law that a bonus that is linked to some type of contingency, like the financial success of the company, is not considered a wage for purposes of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.

Commissions contingent on project profitability and final accounting are not wages subject to Section 22-2-5-1’s payment requirements.

Gress v. Fabcon, Inc. · filed 2005-04-22

In short, because of the length of time involved in determining the final commission, it was simply impossible for Fabcon to know what Gress was owed within ten days. In light of all this, we agree with the trial court that Gress’s commissions were not “wages” within the purview of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.

The ten-day payment rule does not cover commissions based on a sales team's efforts and net sales when they cannot always be calculated within ten days.

McCausland v. Walter USA, Inc. · filed 2009-12-22(b)

Because McCausland's commissions were based on the efforts of his sales team and "net sales," and the commissions could not always be calculated within the statutorily mandated ten-days, we conclude that the commissions were not "wages" within the meaning of the Wage Payment Statute.

Vacation pay is due on termination only if it has vested; absent an employer policy, it vests as work is performed, but an employer policy may set when it vests.

Gazarkiewicz, John A v. Kingsford Heights IN · filed 2004-03-08

These cases further make clear that the right to vacation pay vests upon labor in absence of an employer policy, but if the employer has a policy, that policy governs when an employee’s right vests.

Accrued PTO is a wage, but paying it sixteen months into medical leave complied with an employer policy that required payment after one year without setting a payment date.

Taylor v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc. · filed 2007-02-06

Case law supports the trial court’s conclusion that Taylor’s PTO was deferred compensation and, therefore, a wage. ... There was no untimely payment of wages in violation of the statute, because Taylor was paid for her PTO prior to her termination.

Bonuses that vest only after continued employment are deferred wages that may be forfeited under an employer’s policy.

Swift v. Speedway Superamerica, LLC · filed 2007-02-26

Because the bonus was deferred compensation, it was a wage that could be forfeited.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires payment for wages earned through labor or service; pay claimed for a period when the employee rendered neither is outside the Wage Payment Statute.

City of Clinton v. Goldner · filed 2008-04-30(b)

Here, Goldner did not render labor or service for the period between October 24, 2005, and April 12, 2006. Thus, we conclude that the Wage Payment Statute is not applicable.

Bonuses are not wages subject to the ten-business-day payment rule when they do not directly relate to time worked, are not necessarily paid regularly, and come from a discretionary bonus plan.

Quezare v. Byrider Finance, Inc. · filed 2011-01-14(b)

Finding that the bonuses were not wages for purposes of the Wage Payment Statute because they were not directly related to the amount of time Quezare worked and were not necessarily paid regularly, and because the bonus program was discretionary, we affirm the trial court.

The section covers commissions based on an employee’s own work when the amount can be calculated within its ten-day payment period.

Hamilton County Convention Center, LLC v. Lee R. Johnson (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-08-18(a)

The commissions she ... earned could be calculated instantly, well within the ten days set out by the statute. Further, the size of the commission did not depend on the work of another person or entity; Johnson was the only employee booking clients, and so her commissions were based on her own labor.

Incentive compensation and commissions tied to gross profit, uncertain in amount and timing, and paid in addition to salary do not qualify as wages under Section 1.

Raymond Brown, on behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc., d/b/a BC · filed 2017-11-01

We find that the trial court did not err by finding that the Incentive Compensation and commission payments made by BCforward to Brown were not wages pursuant to the Wage Payment Statute.

Accrued vacation pay is deferred wages payable upon termination unless an agreement or published policy provides otherwise.

Commissioner of Labor Ex Rel. Shofstall v. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, CLC District Council 91 · filed 2011-12-20

The non-payment of accrued vacation time, as proposed by the Union, when an employee is clearly entitled to payment of those days at termination, is contrary to public policy and violates the Wage Payment Statute.

Section 22-2-5-1 does not provide wages for a period when an employee performed no work, even if the employee claims the termination was ineffective.

City of Lawrence Utilities Service Board, City of Lawrence, Indiana, and Dean Jessup, Individually and in His Official C · filed 2016-06-08(b)

Whether or not Curry was “effectively discharged,” it is undisputed that he has not, in fact, been working since the termination. His employer has not been profiting from his labor without timely payment. Indeed, were Curry to recover under this statute, he would receive an undeserved windfall for work that he has not performed.

Section 22-2-5-1 does not entitle an employee to wages merely for being ready and willing to work when the employee has performed no work.

City of Lawrence Utilites Service Board, City of Lawrence, Indiana, and Mayor Dean Jessup, Individually and in his Offic · filed 2017-02-08

Although he claims he has been “ready, willing and able” to work, these sentiments do not entitle him to wages under the WPS.

Section 22-2-5-1 permits an employer and employee to agree on another payment schedule if the employee has not timely requested semimonthly or biweekly payment.

Pope v. Wabash Valley Human Services, Inc. · filed 1986-11-18

In viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Review Board's decision we find that the employees failed to make the requisite "request" in a timely fashion and, therefore, the parties were free to agree to the deferred payment plan included in the employment contract. We believe that the employment contract was not violative of IC 22-2-5-1.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires payment of accrued wages on the next regular payday after an employee voluntarily leaves, without a prior demand for payment.

Super-Valu v. Indiana Commissioner of Labor Ex Rel. Bender · filed 1986-11-26

Baesler's is, in essence, asking us to extend the strict requirements for a demand beyond the timing of payment to the situation where an employee voluntarily leaves employment and seeks unpaid accrued wages, governed by the latter portion of L.C. 22-2-5-1. This we decline to do. The legislature chose not to require a demand for payment upon voluntary termination, explicitly providing that payment not be due until the next usual and regular day for payment of wages.

Wages owed to an employee who voluntarily leaves become late if paid after the next regular payment date.

Valadez v. R.T. Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1995-02-22(b)

Wages owed to a former employee who has voluntarily terminated the employment are late when paid after the next regular day for payment. I.C. § 22-2-5-1(b). For purposes of this appeal, we will use the term "late payments" to refer to wages paid later than the next regular payment date, but before trial.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires employers to pay wages due upon separation at the next usual payday; the employee need not request semi-monthly or bi-weekly payment.

Fardy v. Physicians Health Rehabilitation Services, Inc. · filed 1988-10-27

No demand to be paid semi-monthly or bi-weekly is necessary to activate the penalty in the case where an employer fails to pay amounts due an employee upon separation.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires an employer to pay the amount due to an employee, so regular payments of less than the wages owed do not satisfy it.

St. Vincent Hospital & Health Care Center, Inc. v. Steele · filed 2001-02-21(a)

Steele is correct that if Ind.Code § 22-2-5-2 only deals with the frequency of pay then an employer can avoid the penalty provisions of the statute by tendering $1.00 bi-weekly or semi-monthly regardless of the amount of salary agreed to by the parties. However, the statute also makes reference to paying the employee the amount due. We believe that the instant case is distinguishable from the cases relied upon by St. Vincent. The trial court correctly found that Indiana’s Wage Payment Statute applied to the case at bar. Steele is entitled to liquidated damages and attorney fees under that statute.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires an employer to pay an employee at least every two weeks if the employee requests it.

Hendershot v. Carey · filed 1993-07-07(a)

Indiana Code 22-2-5-1 does not confer automatic liability upon employers whenever a period of longer than two weeks elapses between paychecks. Rather, the statute provides that in order to place liability upon an employer for failure to issue paychecks at least every two weeks, an employee must first submit a request to that effect.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires employers to pay employees within ten days after wages are earned.

Sallee v. Mason · filed 1999-08-06

Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1 requires that an employer pay his employees within ten days of the date wages are earned.

Crediting a bonus toward an employee’s equity interest satisfies the wage payment requirement when the employee receives its full financial benefit.

Tobin v. Ruman · filed 2004-12-09(a)

In this case, Ruman and RCH did, in fact, "compensate" Tobin because he received the full financial benefit of the $10,000, simply applying it to his equity share in RCH. Thus, even if arguendo the Wage Payment Act applies to the bonus, Ruman and RCH have not violated it because they did not fail to pay it to Tobin, and it would be anomalous for us to hold otherwise under these circumstances.

Section 22-2-5-1 governs the frequency of wage payments, not disputes over the amount owed.

Indiana Department of Labor v. Richard · filed 2000-07-18

Though Feign questions the amount due, Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1 ultimately concerns only the frequency of payment and not the amount.

Section 22-2-5-1 governs both how often an employer must pay an employee and the amount of wages due.

St. Vincent Hospital & Health Care Center, Inc. v. Steele · filed 2002-04-22(a)

We conclude the statute governs both the frequency and amount an employer must pay its employee.

Section 22-2-5-1(b) does not require an employee to demand unpaid wages before seeking statutory penalties unless the employee left voluntarily and the employer does not know the employee's whereabouts or address.

Helmuth v. Distance Learning Systems Indiana, Inc. · filed 2005-11-30(b)

Rather, Section 22-2-5-1 states that if an employee leaves employment voluntarily without providing his whereabouts or an address with the employer, the penalty provision of Section 22-2-5-2 does not apply until ten days have elapsed after the employee has made a demand for the wages due. See Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1(1). Here, there is no suggestion that Helmuth failed to provide Distance with his address. Thus, that statute does not apply.

The ten-day limit for paying wages after a pay period counts business days.

Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schools · filed 2007-04-27(b)

We hold that the term “days” as used in the Wage Payment Statute refers to business days and not calendar days.

Section 22-2-5-1(b) allows an employer to pay wages owed to an employee who voluntarily leaves on the next usual and regular payday.

Spoon v. ATF Logistics, LLC (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-11-13(b)

If an employee voluntarily leaves employment, as did Spoon, the employer is not required to pay the employee an amount due the employee until the next usual and regular day for payment of wages, as established by the employer.

Section 22-2-5-1 governs the amount of wages due as well as payment frequency; an employer may not reduce wages for property damage through an unauthorized deduction.

E & L RENTAL EQUIPMENT, INC. v. Bresland · filed 2003-02-12(a)

The statute governs not only the frequency, but also the amount an employer must pay its employee. ... All deductions from wages constitute an assignment, which must meet specified statutory requirements.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires employers to pay employees the amount due on the prescribed schedule; a good faith dispute over an unspecified wage rate did not establish a failure to pay wages here.

David A. Ryker Painting Co. v. Nunamaker · filed 2004-12-09

The Wage Payment Statute requires all employers doing business in Indiana to pay each employee, if requested, at least semi-monthly or biweekly the amount due each employee. Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1. ... This was not a failure on the part of Ryker to pay a wage.

Section 22-2-5-1(a) does not require an employer to pay wages again when it adjusts later paychecks to account for wages already advanced.

Patton v. Stardust Transportation, LLC · filed 2015-01-13(a)

Because Stardust paid Patton’s wages in advance of processing the paperwork, Patton had no legal right to the amount debited to his subsequent paychecks.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires payment of a salaried employee’s salary regardless of the hours actually worked.

Mathews v. Bronger Masonry, Inc. · filed 2011-04-18

Given our finding that Ms. Mathews was a salaried employee, the only amount “due” her would be her salary, regardless of her actual hours worked. Thus, we find that no amount is due to Ms. Mathews for any hours worked and this claim fails.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires payment of a salaried employee’s agreed compensation for a pay period worked, regardless of the hours worked.

DeGood Dimensional Concepts, Inc. v. Wilder · filed 2019-11-12

Notwithstanding DeGood’s decision, Wilder remained a salaried employee and was entitled to his agreed-upon compensation set forth in the Second Agreement. See I.C. § 22-2-5-1 and -2.

An employer may deduct mandatory tax withholding from wages owed under Section 22-2-5-1, including after employment ends.

GHPE Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Godby Heating Plumbing Electrical v. Huxley · filed 2017-01-23

In light of this clear federal and state authority mandating employer withholding of tax obligations ... from an employee’s “wages,” we hold that an employer complies with the WPA if it deducts mandatory tax withholding obligations from an employee’s wages, whether such withholding occurs during or after the employee’s term of employment.

Section 22-2-5-1 protects amounts due for unpaid hours, whether the wage entitlement arises under federal or state law.

PARTLOW v. ASHER · filed 2024-07-10(a)

Said differently, the IWPS counts 'unpaid hours' alike in vindicating FLSA violations and state law violations — but nevertheless safeguards only "amount[s] due", regardless of their stripe.

Section 22-2-5-1 applies to an employer doing business in Indiana even when its employee works out of state.

Huff v. BIOMET, INC. · filed 1995-08-15(a)

Before determining whether Huff stated a claim under the statute, we must first decide whether the statute applies to an out-of-state resident employed by an Indiana business. ... Because Biomet was a corporation doing business in Indiana, we determine that it was subject to the Wage Payment Statute.

Section 22-2-5-1 does not cover salaried employees eligible for FLSA overtime because section 22-2-5-1.1 exempts them.

Braddock v. Madison County, Ind. · filed 1998-11-30(a)

Plaintiffs also are not entitled to relief under the Indiana Wage Claim Statute, Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1. They are all salaried employees who are entitled to overtime under the FLSA and are therefore excluded from the statute by Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1.1.

Section 22-2-5-1 does not apply to public school corporations, so they are not subject to its treble damages penalty.

Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schools · filed 2006-01-18(a)

Thus, we are constrained by the reasoning in Brownsburg to find that the Wage Payment Statute and its treble damages penalty do not apply to Beech Grove.

Section 22-2-5-1 applies to current employees and those who voluntarily leave employment; a discharged employee seeking unpaid wages must proceed under the Wage Claims Statute.

Treat v. Tom Kelley Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. · filed 2010-04-30(b)

Rather, this court will follow the Seventh Circuit holding in Steele that the determination of which statute applies depends upon the status of the plaintiff. ... Under the Steele analysis, the Wage Claims Statute applies to Mr. Treat’s wage claims.

Section 22-2-5-1(a) requires employers to pay wages due to current employees and employees who voluntarily left at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested.

Weil v. Metal Techs., Inc. · filed 2018-03-30(a)

As to current employees and those who voluntarily terminated their employment, the IWPS requires that "every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee." ... As such, he is not a member of the Plaintiff class, which includes only individuals who are currently employed by Metal Technologies, or whose employment was voluntarily terminated.

Section 22-2-5-1 does not provide a wage payment claim to an employee who files suit after being involuntarily terminated.

IMEL v. DC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. · filed 2022-02-01

Ultimately, the Court finds no genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to the inapplicability of the WPS to Imel's wage claim or other discharged plaintiffs seeking to bring claims under that statute after they were involuntarily terminated.

Section 22-2-5-1 applies to wage claims by current employees and employees who voluntarily left employment; the employee's status when suit is filed controls.

Gavin v. Calcars AB, Inc. · filed 2010-12-29(b)

Thus, it is the claimant's status at the time suit is filed that determines whether the Wage Payment Statute or Wage Claims Statute applies to the wage claim. Where, as here, a claimant brings a wage dispute after being involuntarily terminated from employment, he must bring his claim under the Wage Claims Statute.

Section 22-2-5-1 requires a wage claimant to establish that she was the defendant's employee.

WELLS v. THE FREEMAN COMPANY AND VAUGHN · filed 2022-12-16

Wells asserts three claims against Freeman arising under an employer-employee relationship: (1) Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment under Title VII, (2) Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment under Title VII, and (3) Wage Payment under Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 308–26, ECF No. 122.) To succeed on these claims against Freeman, Wells must first establish that she was Freeman's "employee."

Section 22-2-5-1 applies to current employees and those who voluntarily left employment; eligibility depends on the employee's status when the claim is filed.

Hollis v. Defender Security Co. · filed 2011-01-21(b)

We conclude that an employee's status at the time he or she files the claim is the relevant inquiry in determining whether to proceed under the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute.

Section 22-2-5-1 covers wage claims by current employees and employees who leave voluntarily, but employees who file after being fired cannot recover under it.

Treat v. TOM KELLEY BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. · filed 2011-07-13(b)

The Treats’ claims for unpaid wages here fell under the Wage Claims Statute. They cannot recover under the Wage Payment Statute on the claims for unpaid wages they brought after they were fired.

Section 22-2-5-1(b) permits wage payment claims by employees who leave voluntarily, but not by employees who are involuntarily terminated.

Neely v. Facility Concepts, Inc. · filed 2017-04-04(b)

In order to have standing to pursue a claim under the IWPS, the claimant must have voluntarily left his or her employment, either .permanently or temporarily.

Section 22-2-5-1 covers day labor employees who reasonably expect further assignments from the same employer.

Brandy L. Walczak, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Labor Works - Fort Wayne LLC, d/b/a Labor W · filed 2013-03-13(b)

Ultimately, we believe the drafters of the Wage Payment Act intended the statute to benefit the entire Indiana workforce, including day labor employees.

Section 22-2-5-1 applies to counties as bodies politic, so a county cannot claim sovereign immunity from a wage payment claim.

Hendricks County, Indiana v. Gwyn L. Green · filed 2019-03-19

Turning to the Wage Payment State, Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1 identifies “[e]very person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana” as being subject to the provisions of the Statute. ... Accordingly, as it is undeniable that the County is a body politic, it is subject to the Wage Payment Statute and cannot claim sovereign immunity.

Section 22-2-5-1(a) does not impose liability for unpaid wages on both a corporation and an individual officer of that corporation.

Jones v. BOS-Star Inc · filed 2020-01-17(a)

Because the list is in the disjunctive, the Court concludes that the statute is not intended to impose liability on a person and a corporation, but instead a person or a corporation.

Section 22-2-5-1 can cover individual company owners doing business in Indiana, making them potentially liable for unpaid wages.

ESQUE v. DWD COMPANY, LLC · filed 2024-07-29

The individual defendants are certainly "person[s] . . . doing business in Indiana," Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1, so the statute by its plain terms covers them.

Section 22-2-5-1 protects employees of employers doing business in Indiana even when Florida law governs interpretation of the employment contract.

Bray MD v. WeCare TLC, LLC · filed 2021-03-22

While the contract interpretation is under Florida law, Dr. Bray is still afforded the protections of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute because it only requires an employer to be “doing business in Indiana” for it to be bound under the statute.

The Wage Payment statute does not apply to an employee who was involuntarily terminated; that employee must bring wage disputes under the Wage Claims statute.

BAKER v. DWD TRUCKING, LLC · filed 2024-04-17(a)

The Wage Payment statute is not applicable in light of his involuntary termination.

Section 22-2-5-1 wage payment claims are preempted by federal labor law when resolving them requires interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Associates · filed 1996-01-29

Neither this order nor the October 10 order stands for a broad proposition or holding that Ind.Code §§ 22-2-5-1 and 22-2-5-2 inevitably will be preempted in every case where the issue is raised. ... On the facts presented in this case, the Indiana wage payment statute and its enforcement provision are completely preempted by § 301.

A wage claim under section 22-2-5-1 is preempted by federal labor law when determining the wages due requires interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

BLACKLEDGE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. · filed 2024-09-20

The IWPA imposes a duty on Indiana employers to pay all wages due to employees, specifically mandating employers to "pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee." I.C. § 22-2-5-1. ... Because disputes involving the interpretation of collective bargaining agree- ments must be resolved in accordance with federal law, we conclude here that the LMRA preempts Plaintiffs' IWPA claim.