CA Opinion Letter 2002.06.13-2 June 13, 2002 Active
Back to California guidance

Commission calculations

Summary: A commissioned coffee salesperson asked about his employer's plan that debited 50% of any invoice unpaid after 90 days from his commission account, and that limited commissions at termination to those earned within 30 days beforehand. DLSE found the debit provision illegal because it makes the employee an insurer of the employer's own credit-risk losses (citing Quillian v. Lion Oil and Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus), and found the 30-day post-termination forfeiture clause likely unconscionable under Ellis v. McKinnon Broadcasting, since California law entitles a salesperson who was the procuring cause of a sale to the commission regardless of termination timing. Employers should not shift bad-debt risk onto sales staff through commission clawbacks or termination forfeiture clauses.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
View the official document

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
Santa Rosa Legal Section
50 D Street, Suite 360
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 576-6788

H. THOMAS CADELL, Of Counsel

                                 June 13,   2002

Stuart MacLeod
525 Manhattan Ave., #B
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

      Re:        Commission Calculations

Dear Mr. MacLeod:

 Anne Stevason, Acting Chief Counsel of the Division, has asked

me to respond on behalf of the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement to your letter of April 8, 2002.

 In your letter you inquire regarding your employer's policy

which provides:

      "Salespersons will be paid commissions on a monthly basis
      within thirty days from the last day of the month in which the
      commissions are earned. Commissions are earned on a monthly
      basis subject to the following guidelines: [¶]a) Each month 50%
      of the total of any invoice which has been transferred from
      'Accounts Receivable' to the 'Reserve for Bad-Debts' account
      during the month will be deducted from the respective
      salesperson's commissions account. [¶] An invoice will be
      transferred to the 'Reserve for Bad-Debts' account at such
      time that the invoice has been unpaid for ninety days from the
      date of the invoice.[¶]If, and at such time, that an invoice
      which has been transferred to the Reserve for Bad-Debts'
      account is subsequently paid in full, fifty-percent of the
      total invoice amount of that invoice will then be credited to
      the salesperson's 'accrued commissions payable' account. [¶] b)
      Thereafter, the salesperson will receive a credit to his or
      her commissions account for invoices that are paid during a
      month pursuant to the following: [¶]Commissions will be
      credited to a salesperson's commissions account only after an
      invoice is paid in full.[¶]Commissions shall be equal to a
      percentage (determined by the officers of the company) of the
      gross profit earned on the sale, i.e., the difference between
      the sales price of the coffee sold and the cost of the coffee,
      including freight-in, determined on a FIFO (First-in, First-
      out) basis. [¶]Monthly commissions shall be deemed earned only
      after the total amount from paragraph a) is deducted from the
      amount in paragraph b), above. If the amount in paragraph a)
      exceeds the amount in paragraph b) the salesperson will have
      a negative balance on his or her commissions account until the
      next month.[¶]Upon termination of employment, salespersons
      shall be paid only those commissions earned within 30 days of
      the salespersons' termination date."

 You state that your commission is 15% of the gross profit of

the sale you have made. Your concern is that you are held liable
for 50% of the entire invoice if that invoice is not paid. We
would like to address that concern as well as other concerns we
have with the commission plan.

 It would be permissible for an employer to have a commission

policy which provided that in the event that an account was not
paid, the commissions paid on that account would be recovered from
future commissions paid to the salesperson. However, to debit the
salesperson for the cost incurred by the employer as a result of
the default in payment is not allowed in California. In the case
of Quillian v. Lion Oil (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 156; 157 Cal.Rptr.
740, the court cited to established California law which recognized
that "the employees, through the company's policy of deducting
losses, were in effect made insurers of the employer's merchandise,
and the commissions earned by the employees which were subject to
the deduction, served the same purpose as an employee's "bond"
exacted by the employer to cover shortages." (Citing Kerr's
Catering Service v. Department of Industrial Relations (1962) 57
Cal.2d 319, 19 Cal.Rptr. 492, 369 P.2d 20) The Quillian court
noted that "Deductions were made, therefore, for losses beyond the
employees' control." Again, in the case of Hudgins v. Neiman
Marcus (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1109, the California courts reached
the same conclusion holding that "employees may not be made the
insurers of business losses suffered by the employer".

 Thus, based on the facts you present and the case law in

California, it is the opinion of the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement that the California courts would find the deduction by
the employer of 50% of the cost of the goods sold from earned
commissions is illegal. (See Labor Code §§ 221, 224)

 In addition, the provision in the commission policy which

purports to limit the commissions earned by a salesperson to those
earned within 30 days of the salesperson's termination may be, on
its face, illegal as well. In the case of Ellis v. McKinnon Broad-
casting Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1796, the California court held
a forfeiture clause in a written employment contract providing that
upon termination, salesman shall only be entitled to commissions on
fees collected through final date of actual employment was
substantively unconscionable, even if salesman knew or should have
known of the provision. The court found that the clause enured to
the benefit of the employer, the party with superior bargaining
power which inserted it in a standard form employment contract. The
court found that the clause was void as a result of the provisions
of California Civil Code § 1670.5 coupled with the historical
protections afforded wages in this state.

 The California courts have long held that commissions must be

paid to salespersons who are the procuring cause of the sale
regardless of the termination of the employment. (See Watson v.
Wood Dimension (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1359; Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.
(1944) 24 Cal.2d 290; Willison v. Turner Resilient Floors (1949) 89
Cal.App.2d 589, holding that "He who shakes the tree is the one to
gather the fruit")

 We hope this adequately addresses the concerns you raised in

your letter of April 8, 2002. Please excuse the delay in respond-
ing which is the result of many requests for opinions.

Yours truly,

H. THOMAS CADELL, JR.
Attorney for the Labor Commissioner

c.c. Arthur Lujan, State Labor Commissioner
Tom Grogan, Chief Deputy Labor Commissioner
Anne Stevason, Acting Chief Counsel
Assistant Labor Commissioners
Regional Managers