WAGES AND OTHER COMPENSATION, PAYMENT OF
388-2 Semimonthly payday; method of payment of wages
388-3 Employees who are separated from the payroll before
388-4 Payment of wages to relatives of deceased employees
388-5 Unconditional payment of wages conceded to be due
388-5.5 Payment of wages by check or electronic transfer
388-5.7 Payment of wages by pay cards
388-6 Withholding of wages
388-7 Notification, posting, and records
388-8 Provisions of law may not be waived by agreement
388-9.5 Order of wage payment violation; appeal
388-9.6 Remittance of penalties
388-9.7 Enforcement of the order of wage payment violation
388-11 Employees remedies
388-12 Reciprocal agreements with other states; actions
388-13 Rules and regulations
388-31 to 33 Repealed
388-41 Advance notice of termination of employment
388-42 Other applicable provisions
Part IV. Job Application Processing Fees
388-51 Job application processing fee
Chapters 387 and 388 serve to prevent employer from withholding sums or benefits to which employee has rights by virtue of contract with employer, not a predecessor. 661 F.2d 776 (1981).
Plaintiff hotel employees' claim pursuant to this chapter was not preempted by §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §185(a), because the claim asserted a state-law right that was independent of any right conferred by their collective bargaining agreement ("agreement"); further, agreement did not need to be interpreted in resolving this claim. 835 F. Supp. 2d 914 (2011).
Plaintiffs could not bring a statutory claim under this chapter, where plaintiffs sought to recover wages to which they failed to demonstrate they were legally entitled. Plaintiffs could not assert a legal right as third party beneficiaries to the amounts allegedly withheld by virtue of defendant employer's failure to pay the bargaining unit wage rates as set forth in the 2006 Addendum to defendant employer's contract and plaintiffs did not seek to recover withheld wages pursuant to a contractual agreement between plaintiffs and defendant employer. 105 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (2015).
Where defendant had authority over the operation of the hotels at which plaintiffs were employed, and defendant failed to raise an argument regarding defendant's status as "employer" until after the court had entered its final judgment, the circuit court did not err in concluding that defendant was an "employer" under this chapter. 133 H. 1, 323 P.3d 792 (2014).
Chapter establishes clear mandate of public policy to protect at will employee from being discharged for asserting rights accorded employee by its provisions, and does not itself provide sufficient remedy for discharge; no legislative intent to supersede at will employee’s common law remedy for wrongful discharge detected. 10 H. App. 250, 865 P.2d 170 (1994).