South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDLLR vs. Carolina Pro Green Landscapes

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Division of Labor

Respondents:
Carolina Pro Green Landscapes
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-11-0003-CC

APPEARANCES:
Phillip S. Lenski, Esquire, for Petitioner

Steve Harper, pro se, for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
SC LLR v. Carolina Pro Green Landscapes

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION





South Carolina Department of ) Docket No. 00-ALJ-11-0003-CC

Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, )

Division of Labor, )

)

Petitioner, )

) FINAL ORDER

v. ) AND DECISION

)

Carolina Pro Green Landscapes, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)



APPEARANCES: Phillip S. Lenski, Esquire, for Petitioner

Steve Harper, pro se, for Respondent



Carolina Pro Green Landscapes ("Respondent") contests a citation issued to it by the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Division of Labor ("Department") under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. The Department imposed a fine in the amount of $150.00. A hearing was held in the above-referenced matter on April 6, 2000 at the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") in Columbia.



FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Steve Harper is the owner of Respondent, Carolina Pro Green Landscapes.

2. Willie Hayes was an employee of Respondent.

3. Upon his employment, Willie Hayes was given written notice and an explanation of the terms of employment. In addition, frequent meetings are conducted by Steve Harper with his employees to review the terms, rules and policies of Carolina Pro Green Landscapes.

4. The terms referred to above state in pertinent part:

a. Any employee seperated (sic) from this company

for any reason owing the company any indebtedness,

we will use your last paycheck to cover this indebtedness.

In the case of company property, if not returned within

24 hours, we will use your last wages to cover cost of

said property. . . .

b. Any employee who incurs a personal debt against this

company will be held responsible for this debt.



d. Any employee who observes a company vehicle being

operated in an unlawful or unsafe manner will demand

the driver stop and call a supervisor.



e. Employees who are issued company equipment will be

held responsible for this equipment if lost, stolen or

destroyed. . . .



f. Each employee is financially responsible for negligent

operation of company equipment. Any equipment that is

improperly used or not serviced as required by management,

you will be held responsible for that equipment if damaged

because of your neglect to do so.



5. On the morning of August 26, 1999, Harper held a meeting with Respondent's employees for the purpose of reviewing and explaining each rule and policy of the company. This discussion included an explanation of the terms of employment.

6. Later that day, the work crew, consisting of Paul Keith, Willie Hayes and Cedric Dickens, continued running a company truck although it was overheated. Hayes and Dickens were passengers in the truck, and Keith was the driver.

7. Keith, Hayes, and Dickens knew that the truck was overheating, but neither Hayes nor Dickens demanded that Keith stop the vehicle. Although there was a cell phone in the vehicle within reach, neither Hayes or Dickens attempted to call their supervisor. Instead, Hayes, Dickens and Keith continued to the office to pick up their paychecks, and the truck "seized" by the time they arrived.

8. The damage caused by the overheating required a new engine for the truck. According to Steve Harper, the monetary loss to the Respondent, Carolina Pro Green Landscapes, was $661.00.

9. On September 9, 1999, Steve Harper wrote a letter explaining to Keith, Hayes, and Dickens that because of their disregard of the terms of employment and company policies, he was charging each person $220.33, which would be deducted from their paychecks.



10. Harper deducted half of the amount from the paycheck of Hayes for the week ending September 4, 1999, and the other half from his paycheck for the week ending September 18, 1999. Harper deducted like amounts from the paychecks of Keith and Dickens

11. No one has contested the amount deducted or the reasonableness of the amount.

12. Thereafter, Willie Hayes contacted the Department disputing the Respondent's right to deduct any amount from his paycheck.

13. According to the testimony of the Department's Labor Investigator, Lafredia C. Stacks, the terms of employment adequately stated that monetary losses to equipment could be deducted from the driver's paycheck under the instant circumstances.

14. If Hayes had called his supervisor to report the continued operation of the vehicle, no amounts would have been deducted from his paycheck.

15. Respondent was later cited for violating S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-40(D) (Supp. 1999) and fined $150.00 for deducting the amounts from Hayes' paycheck. No citation was issued to the Respondent for deducting like amounts from the checks of Keith and Dickens.



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the ALJD pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 1999).

2. "An employer shall not withhold or divert any portion of an employee's wages unless the employer . . . has given written notification to the employee of the amount and terms of the deductions as required by subsection (A) of § 41-10-30." S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-40(C) (Supp. 1999).

3. "Every employer shall notify each employee in writing at the time of hiring of the normal hours and wages agreed upon, the time and place of payment, and the deductions which will be made from the wages, including payments to insurance programs. The employer has the option of giving written notification by posting the terms conspicuously at or near the place of work. . . ." S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-30(A) (Supp. 1999).



4. Section (d) of Respondent's terms of employment imposes upon a passenger-employee the duty to "demand the driver stop and [to] call a supervisor" if that passenger-employee

sees a company vehicle being operated in an unsafe manner. There is no dispute about Hayes' failure to do anything to protect the company vehicle. His failure to do so constitutes a breach of the duty imposed by Section (d) of the terms of employment. Whether or not the driver had stopped, if Hayes had contacted the office, he would not have been charged any portion of the repair bill.

5. Section (f) of the terms of employment provides that "you" will be held responsible for company equipment damaged because of "your" neglect. This pronoun refers not only to a driver, but to the employee signing the terms of employment, which in this case is Willie Hayes.

6. Finally, Section (a) of the terms of employment informs an employee that money owed "for any reason" would be deducted from the last paycheck to reimburse the Respondent. Section (b) of the terms of employment informs an employee that personal debts against the Respondent must be repaid. Several other sections address monies to be deducted from a paycheck for improper operation of company equipment.

7. In considering particular and specific facts of this case where: (1) there has been no dispute as to the amount deducted; (2) the amount deducted is not so outrageous as to shock the conscience and appears reasonable; (3) the employee made no attempt to comply with a rather non-onerous duty, such as calling his supervisor; (4) Stack's testimony that the notification was sufficient to deduct the amounts from the driver's paycheck; and (5) no citation was issued for the deductions from the driver's paycheck nor the other passenger's paycheck, I conclude that the Respondent did not improperly "divert any portion of an employee's wages."

8. However, I reach no conclusion as to the adequacy of the written notice under a circumstance that lacks any of the facts of this case, particularly those set forth in Paragraph 7 above.

I find that no violation occurred.











ORDER



IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department's decision to issue a citation and fine against Respondent, Carolina Pro Green Landscapes, is hereby reversed.





______________________________

C. DUKES SCOTT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE





April 25, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court