Employee deductions

[Suzanne54]

What is the name of your state? VA.

So I know that you can't withhold something from an employees paycheck unless they authorize it. But here is the situation.
1. Employee has been issued a company provided credit card.
2. Employee has been given direction, in writing, what he/she is allowed to charge and that receipts have to be provided every week.
3. The directions state that any unauthorized charges and/or any receipts not supplied will be deducted from his/her paycheck.
4. This written direction was signed by the employee(s).
If the employee does not provide the receipt, can I legally withhold the charge from his/her paycheck?

 

[cbg]

I would consider that in signing the notification that unauthorized charges, or charges without receipts, would be deducted from her paycheck, the employee has authorized those deductions. Stand by for other opinions.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? VA.

So I know that you can't withhold something from an employees paycheck unless they authorize it. But here is the situation.
1. Employee has been issued a company provided credit card.
2. Employee has been given direction, in writing, what he/she is allowed to charge and that receipts have to be provided every week.
3. The directions state that any unauthorized charges and/or any receipts not supplied will be deducted from his/her paycheck.
4. This written direction was signed by the employee(s).
If the employee does not provide the receipt, can I legally withhold the charge from his/her paycheck?

That sounds like authorization to me.

However, as a boss interested in keeping good employees, I would probably use a little discretion. There can be de minimus expenses that do not require a receipt and if the charge is clearly an expenses of the business (no ambiguity) I would probably give the employee a couple of chances to remember to keep and turn in receipts, before I started deducting from their paycheck.

 

[justalayman]

I disagree


Section 40.1-29(D) provides:
No employer shall require any employee, except executive personnel, to sign any contract which provides for the forfeiture of the employee's wages for time worked as a condition of employment or the continuance therein, except as otherwise provided by law.

Per the website I can’t name, a blanket authorization is considered to be a per se condition of employment and as such, not enforceable. I agree with that statement. So, what that means is you have to have them authorize a specific deduction for it to be a valid authorization.

 

[justalayman]

And I suggest you seriously consider my position since the penalty for unlawfully withholding wages is quite serious

E. An employer who willfully and with intent to defraud fails or refuses to pay wages in accordance with this section:
1. To an employee or employees is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if the value of the wages earned and not paid by the employer is less than $10,000; and
2. To an employee or employees is guilty of a Class 6 felony (i) if the value of the wages earned and not paid is $10,000 or more or (ii) regardless of the value of the wages earned and not paid, if the conviction is a second or subsequent conviction under this section.
For purposes of this section, the determination as to the "value of the wages earned" shall be made by combining all wages the employer failed or refused to pay pursuant to this section.

I strongly suggest erring on the side of caution given the fact they take improper deductions very seriously in Virginia.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree


Section 40.1-29(D) provides:
No employer shall require any employee, except executive personnel, to sign any contract which provides for the forfeiture of the employee's wages for time worked as a condition of employment or the continuance therein, except as otherwise provided by law.

Per the website I can’t name, a blanket authorization is considered to be a per se condition of employment and as such, not enforceable. I agree with that statement. So, what that means is you have to have them authorize a specific deduction for it to be a valid authorization.

What is the exception ("except as otherwise provided by law")? If a valid authorization to deduct charges has been signed, that might just fall under the exception.

 

[Zigner]

I strongly suggest erring on the side of caution given the fact they take improper deductions very seriously in Virginia.

I do agree with this.

 

[LdiJ]

I disagree


Section 40.1-29(D) provides:
No employer shall require any employee, except executive personnel, to sign any contract which provides for the forfeiture of the employee's wages for time worked as a condition of employment or the continuance therein, except as otherwise provided by law.

Per the website I can’t name, a blanket authorization is considered to be a per se condition of employment and as such, not enforceable. I agree with that statement. So, what that means is you have to have them authorize a specific deduction for it to be a valid authorization.

So, you are saying that they would have to approve it each time the employer wanted to make a deduction? In that case, I would consider removing the credit card from them entirely if they could not be responsible (after a warning or two) for turning in receipts.

 

[FlyingRon]

If the charges were indeed personal charges of the employee, I'd argue that the wages aren't being forfeited, just the method of payment changed.
However, this appears to be a punitive forfeiture to get the employee to fill out paperwork which is not allowed.
You'll have to come up with a better form of personnel management.

 

[justalayman]

What is the exception ("except as otherwise provided by law")? If a valid authorization to deduct charges has been signed, that might just fall under the exception.

It was a general reference to any condition that might be present in any law.

The site I got the statement from specifically spoke to blanket authorizations as being invalid.

 

[LdiJ]

If the charges were indeed personal charges of the employee, I'd argue that the wages aren't being forfeited, just the method of payment changed.
However, this appears to be a punitive forfeiture to get the employee to fill out paperwork which is not allowed.
You'll have to come up with a better form of personnel management.

That is a valid point. I would also make the point that the authorization was not a condition of employment, but rather a condition of having use of a company credit card.

 

[justalayman]

So, you are saying that they would have to approve it each time the employer wanted to make a deduction? In that case, I would consider removing the credit card from them entirely if they could not be responsible (after a warning or two) for turning in receipts.

As I read it, they would have to authorize a specific amount to be deducted, not a separate deduction for each paycheck, unless the employee specifically included such a limitation.

 

[justalayman]

If the charges were indeed personal charges of the employee, I'd argue that the wages aren't being forfeited, just the method of payment changed.
However, this appears to be a punitive forfeiture to get the employee to fill out paperwork which is not allowed.
You'll have to come up with a better form of personnel management.

Since when does the law allow for in kind payments in lieu of money for earned income?

 

[FlyingRon]

If he's so concerned about this, he just should switch the methodology to what most of the corporate cards I had over the years. The bills came to me as the employee. They were my responsibility to pay unless I submitted the justification to be reimbursed. Even the federal card (which I pretty much told them they could shove up their rear) worked that way.

 

[FlyingRon]

Since when does the law allow for in kind payments in lieu of money for earned income?

It's not "in kind." They're not paying him in socks or whatever he charged, they're paying him in the money he spent on the card.