PAYMENT OF WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS
Act 390 of 1978
408.471 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) "Department" means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs.
(b) "Employ" means to engage or permit to work.
(c) "Employee" means an individual employed by an employer.
(d) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or corporation, public or private; this state or an agency of this state; a city, county, village, township, school district, or intermediate school district; an institution of higher education; or an individual acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer who employs 1 or more individuals. Except as specifically provided in the franchise agreement, as between a franchisee and franchisor, the franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers for whom the franchisee provides a benefit plan or pays wages.
(e) "Fringe benefits" means compensation due an employee pursuant to a written contract or written policy for holiday, time off for sickness or injury, time off for personal reasons or vacation, bonuses, authorized expenses incurred during the course of employment, and contributions made on behalf of an employee.
(f) "Wages" means all earnings of an employee whether determined on the basis of time, task, piece, commission, or other method of calculation for labor or services except those defined as fringe benefits under subdivision (e) above.
History: 1978, Act 390, Imd. Eff. Aug. 1, 1978 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 18, Eff. May 23, 2016
Compiler's Notes:
For creation of bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation within department of consumer and industry services; transfer of powers and duties of bureau of worker's compensation and unemployment agency to bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation; transfer of powers and duties of director of bureau of worker's compensation and director of unemployment agency to director of bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation; and, transfer of powers and duties of wage and hour division of worker's compensation board of magistrates to bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation, see E.R.O. No. 2002-1, compiled at MCL 445.2004 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
For creation of the new wage and hour division as a type II agency within the department of labor and economic growth, see E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
For transfer of powers and duties of the former wage and hour division of the department of consumer and industry services, transferred to the bureau of worker's and unemployment compensation, to the new wage and hour division within the department of labor and economic growth by type II transfer, see E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
For the transfer of powers and duties of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs to the department of labor and economic opportunity, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.
Notes of Decisions
Buckley v. Prof'l Plaza Clinic Corp., 761 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Further, substantial evidence supported the referee’s decision that an employee-employer relationship existed between Dr.”
Detroit Pub. Schs. v. Conn, 308 Mich. App. 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The hearings officers ruled that a deduction from or reduction of appellee-teachers’ pay, which was authorized by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the DPS and the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), violated several provisions of 1978 PA 390 , the payment of…”
Medex v. McCabe, 811 A.2d 297 (Md. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 408.471 (2002) (listing "commission" within the definition of "wages," and "bonus" within the definition of "fringe benefits").”
Cork v. Applebee’s of Michigan, Inc, 608 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged violations of the wages and fringe benefits act (wfba), MCL 408.471 et seq.-, MSA 17.277(1) et seq.”
Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (1989).
“100, §94 (1985); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 408.471 to 408.475 (1985); Minn.”
William Beaumont Hosp. v. Wass, 889 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“5 Next, in Minicuci , the plaintiff challenged a decision by the Michigan Department of Labor that he was not entitled to additional wages under the wages and fringe benefits act, MCL 408.471 et seq. Minicuci, 243 Mich App at 30 .”
Carpenter v. City of Flint Sch. Dist., 321 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff's complaint alleged that under the payments of wages and fringe benefits act, MCL 408.471 et seq.; MSA 17.277(1) et seq.”
Cockels v. Int'l Bus. Expositions, Inc, 406 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant complaint in the circuit court on February 4, 1986, alleging that her discharge, due to her assertion of her right to compensation, violated the "public policy of the State of Michigan as embodied in the wages and fringe benefits act,” MCL…”
Gravely v. Pfizer, Inc, 427 N.W.2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Petitioner claimed that Pfizer’s refusal to pay petitioner certain incentive pay at the time petitioner resigned her employment violated Michigan’s wages and fringe benefits act, MCL 408.471 et seq.; MSA 17.277(1) et seq.”
Mahnick v. Bell Co., 662 N.W.2d 830 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“473, rather than a commission falling under the definition of “wages” that her employer must pay under the wages and fringe benefits act (wfba), MCL 408.471(f); MCL 408.472. In the instant case, however, plaintiff has asserted a common-law breach-of-contract claim and did not…”
Smith v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 919 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
· cites it 3× “) On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Wage and Hour Division (‘Wage and Hour Division”) opened, and subsequently investigated, a claim initiated by Smith for unpaid wages pursuant to the Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefits Act,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(1) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(a) — 2 cases
Detroit Pub. Schs. v. Conn, 308 Mich. App. 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“The hearings officers ruled that a deduction from or reduction of appellee-teachers’ pay, which was authorized by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the DPS and the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), violated several provisions of 1978 PA 390 , the payment of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(b) — 1 case
Buckley v. Prof'l Plaza Clinic Corp., 761 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Further, substantial evidence supported the referee’s decision that an employee-employer relationship existed between Dr.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(c) — 1 case
Buckley v. Prof'l Plaza Clinic Corp., 761 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Further, substantial evidence supported the referee’s decision that an employee-employer relationship existed between Dr.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(d) — 1 case
Buckley v. Prof'l Plaza Clinic Corp., 761 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Further, substantial evidence supported the referee’s decision that an employee-employer relationship existed between Dr.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(e) — 8 cases
Detroit Pub. Schs. v. Conn, 308 Mich. App. 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“The hearings officers ruled that a deduction from or reduction of appellee-teachers’ pay, which was authorized by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the DPS and the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), violated several provisions of 1978 PA 390 , the payment of…”
Carpenter v. City of Flint Sch. Dist., 321 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“Plaintiff's complaint alleged that under the payments of wages and fringe benefits act, MCL 408.471 et seq.; MSA 17.277(1) et seq.”
Gravely v. Pfizer, Inc, 427 N.W.2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Petitioner claimed that Pfizer’s refusal to pay petitioner certain incentive pay at the time petitioner resigned her employment violated Michigan’s wages and fringe benefits act, MCL 408.471 et seq.; MSA 17.277(1) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(f) — 6 cases
Mahnick v. Bell Co., 662 N.W.2d 830 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“473, rather than a commission falling under the definition of “wages” that her employer must pay under the wages and fringe benefits act (wfba), MCL 408.471(f); MCL 408.472. In the instant case, however, plaintiff has asserted a common-law breach-of-contract claim and did not…”
Cork v. Applebee’s of Michigan, Inc, 608 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged violations of the wages and fringe benefits act (wfba), MCL 408.471 et seq.-, MSA 17.277(1) et seq.”
Gravely v. Pfizer, Inc, 427 N.W.2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Petitioner claimed that Pfizer’s refusal to pay petitioner certain incentive pay at the time petitioner resigned her employment violated Michigan’s wages and fringe benefits act, MCL 408.471 et seq.; MSA 17.277(1) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.471(l)(f) — 1 case
Cockels v. Int'l Bus. Expositions, Inc, 406 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant complaint in the circuit court on February 4, 1986, alleging that her discharge, due to her assertion of her right to compensation, violated the "public policy of the State of Michigan as embodied in the wages and fringe benefits act,” MCL…”
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.