Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-3 (2026)

  Employees who are separated from the payroll before paydays

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §388-3  Employees who are separated from the payroll before paydays.  (a)  Whenever an employer discharges an employee either with or without cause, the employer shall pay the employee's wages in full at the time of discharge or if the discharge occurs at a time and under conditions which prevent an employer from making immediate payment, then not later than the working day following discharge.

     (b)  Whenever an employee quits or resigns, the employer shall pay the employee's wages in full no later than the next regular payday, as provided under section 388-2, either through the regular pay channels or by mail if requested by the employee, except that if the employee gives at least one pay period's notice of intention to quit, the employer shall pay all wages earned by the employee at the time of quitting.

     (c)  When work of an employee is suspended as a result of a labor dispute, or when an employee for any reason whatsoever is temporarily laid off, the employer shall pay in full to the employee not later than the next regular payday, as designated under section 388-2, either through the regular pay channels or by mail if requested by the employee, wages earned at the time of suspension or layoff. [L 1963, c 158, pt of §3; Supp, §95-3; HRS §388-3]

 

Case Notes

 

  In reading this section in the context of the entire statute and in light of the common law, the trial court did not err in concluding that payment for unused vacation upon separation from employment did not constitute "wages" under the plain meaning of §388-1.  108 H. 411, 121 P.3d 391 (2005).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2007 · leading case: Casumpang v. ILWU LOCAL 142, 121 P.3d 391 (Haw. 2005).
Casumpang v. ILWU LOCAL 142, 121 P.3d 391 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 10× “Because the convention policies were not considered by the district court at the time judgment was rendered, nor was it properly introduced into the record, this court cannot consider them.”
Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 164 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 2× “The Ha\vai‘i Wage Payment Act (HRS chapter 388) HRS § 388-3(a) (1993) specifically mandates that, [wjhenever an employer[ 35 ] discharges an employee either with or without cause, the employer shall pay the employee’s wages[ 36 ] in full at the time of discharge or if the…”
Casumpang v. ILWU, LOCAL 142, 13 P.3d 1235 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 4× “HRS § 388-5(a) provides: In case of a dispute as to the amount of wages, the employer shall pay, without condition and within the time set by this chapter, all wages, or parts thereof, conceded by the employer to be due, leaving to the employee all remedies the employee might…”
Lee v. Puamana Cmty. Ass'n, 128 P.3d 874 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 2× “3d 391, 401 (2005) (reading HRS § 388-3 in the context of the entire statute and in light of the common law); Burns Int’l Sec.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-3(a) — 2 cases
Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 164 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007). “The Ha\vai‘i Wage Payment Act (HRS chapter 388) HRS § 388-3(a) (1993) specifically mandates that, [wjhenever an employer[ 35 ] discharges an employee either with or without cause, the employer shall pay the employee’s wages[ 36 ] in full at the time of discharge or if the…”
Casumpang v. ILWU, LOCAL 142, 13 P.3d 1235 (Haw. 2000). “HRS § 388-5(a) provides: In case of a dispute as to the amount of wages, the employer shall pay, without condition and within the time set by this chapter, all wages, or parts thereof, conceded by the employer to be due, leaving to the employee all remedies the employee might…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.