A subject in Indiana employment law that has recently generated some interesting debates concerns wage status under the ind. Code. 22-2-5 and the Statute of Pay Claims under Ind. Code. 2-29. Both statutes govern the options available to an employee who believes that his or her employer has not paid the payable wages. However, it is important to know the differences between the two statutes.
First, the wage payment statute regulates the time within which employers must pay the wages to their employees. If an employee assigns a pay claim to the Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the DOL accepts that assignment, the employee will not be able to file a lawsuit under the payroll statute unless the DOL ratifies, replaces, or joins the lawsuit of the employee .
Secondly, the Statute of Payroll Claims concerns disputes about the amount of the compensation. Claims under the status of pay claims must be submitted to the DOL. After filing an application with the DOL, an exemption or referral must be filed with the DOL or the public prosecution service (“AGO”) so that the employee’s attorney can continue the lawsuit.
Submitting an application to the DOL is relatively easy. Normally, the employee’s lawyer will complete the process and file the application using forms provided by the DOL. Otherwise, an application for wage claim can be submitted online via the DOL website.
It is important to consult with a lawyer or the DOL, if the employee does not have a lawyer, the various requirements related to filing an application. For example, the DOL refuses to process the application if the employee’s basis is minimum wages, overtime, holiday pay or sick pay. In addition, the DOL will not process the application if the employer has not filed for bankruptcy in the state of Indiana. Even if you have performed the work as an independent contractor, the DOL will not process the application. The DOL will only process requests if the claim is between $ 30.00 or $ 6,000. In all other situations, the employee needs a lawyer.
The Indiana Supreme Court recently examined the payroll statute and the payroll statute in the case Walczak v. Labor Works – Fort Wayne LLC983 N.E. 2d 1146 (Ind. 2013). This decision clarified which claims should be placed under the Payroll Status, as opposed to the Payroll Status.
The Walczak case revolved around the meaning of “separated from the payroll” as that term is used in the Wage Claims Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the matter really had jurisdiction; if the employee was involuntarily separated from the payroll, the court would not have jurisdiction over her claim, but if she voluntarily left employment, the court would have jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court concluded that when an employee who had not left her job on his own terms submitted a wage claim, it was logical to subject her claim to an administrative review before it can go directly to court. A day worker was not separated from the payroll within the meaning of the Wages and Salaries Act, unless that employee had no immediate expectation of a possible future job with the same employer. The employee had such an immediate expectation. She continued to work sporadically for the office for the next four weeks. The employee was not separated from the payroll and does not have to meet the requirements of the Wages Act.
The Walczak case expanded the law and held that “[w]If an employee who has not left her job on his own terms claims wages, it makes sense to subject her claim to an administrative check before going directly to court. “An employee is not separated from the payroll for the purposes of the Wages Act, unless the employee has no immediate expectation of any future employment with the same employer.