McDaniel-Guthrie v. Mechanical Analysis/Repair CA3

Filed 5/22/14 McDaniel-Guthrie v. Mechanical Analysis/Repair CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

ANGIE M. MCDANIEL-GUTHRIE, C071425

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 39-2012-00277983-CU-JR- v. STK)

MECHANICAL ANALYSIS/REPAIR, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Angie M. McDaniel-Guthrie contends her former employer, defendant Mechanical Analysis/Repair, Inc. (Martech) violated state labor law by purportedly not paying her on her last day of work all of the commissions she had earned up to that day. Although all of the commissions were subsequently paid except one on an ongoing contract, she asserts the failure to pay on her last day of work entitles her to penalties for the time she had to wait to receive her commissions (Lab. Code, §§ 201, 203), and that Martech must also pay a commission to her on the ongoing contract.

1

A hearing officer for the Labor Commissioner determined Martech had paid plaintiff all commissions owed her in a timely manner under the commission agreement between plaintiff and Martech, and she denied plaintiff’s wage claim. Plaintiff appealed her claim to the trial court, and that court affirmed the Labor Commissioner’s decision. We, too, affirm the decision and find plaintiff is to take nothing ($0) on her claim. Plaintiff’s right to commissions is governed by the terms of her commission agreement with Martech. (Nein v. HostPro, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 833, 853.) At trial, the parties stipulated the commission agreement granted plaintiff her commissions on three conditions: first, she was entitled to receive 20 percent of the final profit for the accounts of the customers she secured as her commission; second, her commission was payable on the first payroll of the third month after the customer invoice was created; and third, her commission was payable on paid invoices only. Plaintiff was not entitled to receive commissions until all of those conditions had been satisfied. Plaintiff understood the commission agreement to mean commissions were earned upon issuance of the invoice, and that when the customer paid the invoice, she would be paid her commission. So when she quit effective June 17, 2011, she expected a check in her hand for commissions from all paid invoices she had procured in April, May, and June of 2011, even though they were not payable to her until the third month after the invoice was created. For those invoices that had not yet been paid, she expected a check the moment they were paid. The express language of the commission agreement contradicts plaintiff’s understanding, and it governs here. (Nein v. HostPro, Inc., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 853.) Plaintiff’s receipt of commissions was conditioned on Martech determining final gross profit from the invoice, receiving payment on the invoice from the customer, and paying the commissions on a set schedule. Except for a commission on an ongoing contract, Martech paid plaintiff all of her earned commissions according to these conditions, and thus is not liable for any wait penalties.