Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.474 (2026)

Withholding payment of compensation due as fringe benefit to be paid at termination date.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PAYMENT OF WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS


Act 390 of 1978


408.474 Withholding payment of compensation due as fringe benefit to be paid at termination date.

Sec. 4.

    An employer shall not withhold a payment of compensation due an employee as a fringe benefit to be paid at a termination date unless the withholding is agreed upon by written contract or a signed statement obtained with the full and free consent of the employee without intimidation or fear of discharge for refusing to agree to the withholding of the benefit.

History: 1978, Act 390, Imd. Eff. Aug. 1, 1978 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 602, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 1979

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
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Detroit Pub. Schs. v. Conn, 308 Mich. App. 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Detroit Pub. Schs. v. Conn, 308 Mich. App. 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” MCL 408.474. Finally, we find that the hearings officer’s analysis ascribing the “benefit” of one portion of the CBA to the DPS is very problematic.”
Buckley v. Prof'l Plaza Clinic Corp., 761 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “472; MCL 408.474. 21 Kamalnath v Mercy Mem Hosp Corp, 194 Mich App 543, 553 ; 487 NW2d 499 (1992), quoting Parham v Preferred Risk Mut Ins Co, 124 Mich App 618, 622-623 ;”
Carpenter v. City of Flint Sch. Dist., 321 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “As she did before the trial court, plaintiff argues that § 4, MCL 408.474; MSA 17.277(4), of the wages and fringe benefits act mandates that fringe benefits, such as unused leave, cannot be withheld from her because the master contract did not specifically provide for such…”
Small v. Chemlawn Corp., 584 F. Supp. 690 (W.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 408.474; M.S.A. § 17.277(4); see also, M.”
Robert E Heine v. MacH 1 Global Servs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” MCL 408.474. In accordance with the relevant provisions of MCL 408.”
Robert E Heine v. MacH 1 Global Servs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” MCL 408.474. In accordance with the relevant provisions of MCL 408.”
Detroit Pub. Schs. Cmty. Dist. v. Steven Wasko (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “An employer cannot “withhold a payment of compensation due an employee as a fringe benefit to be paid at a termination date unless the withholding is agreed upon by written contract or a signed statement obtained with the full and free consent of the employee without…”
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.