My husband has worked for a company for 2 years now. Over the course of these 2 years there have been many errors on his paycheck. He is paid piece work, meaning he gets a percentage of the total ticket of the jobs he has done. However, there are many times when he receives his paycheck that there are some jobs he hasn't been paid for. He has taken it to his immediate supervisor as well as the gentleman that does payroll. Sometimes it is taken care of right away while others it can take as long as a month before he receives what he is owed. Is there a law that requires employers to pay their employees money owed within a certain amount of time? Right now he has been waiting a month to be fully paid for one job and now he has been waiting a week for 2 other jobs. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

There is no law that specifically states how quickly paycheck errors must be corrected, but I agree that a month is too long, assuming there is no dispute that the amount is actually due. He can file a claim with the ICA, but they are apparently really backlogged, as their site says the investigation could take up to six months! :eek:
http://www.ica.state.az.us/faqs/labor/wage_claims.html

I would give payroll a chance to fix it,some times payroll offices run into problems computer crashes,etc,etc. That said if it is apparent they don't intend to correct it you don't have to use the State D.O.L
A.R.S 23-355. Action by employee to recover wages; amount of recovery
If an employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall fail to pay wages due any employee, such employee may recover in a civil action against an employer or former employer an amount which is treble the amount of the unpaid wages.
Treble damages translates to three times the owed wage ,for example the employer owes $1000. If he goes to trial,and loses the court will order $3000 $1000 X 3 = $3000 A.R.S 23-355 imposes personal liability on the business owner, thus piercing the corporate veil. So if the owner has personal assets there may be a source of money beyond the corporate insolvency. Forget the D.O.L thats a waste of time.
JoeC

A.R.S 23-355 imposes personal liability on the business owner, thus piercing the corporate veil. So if the owner has personal assets there may be a source of money beyond the corporate insolvency.

Are you making this up? I don't see anything in the statute about the owners of a corporation being personally liable.

No I'm not Scott,the law is written,and Arizona courts interpret it to protect employees (usually in small company's)from employers that file bankruptcy or other move. Corporations operate under a corporate veil (Thats legal),if a corporation becomes defunct,it can not be sued,since it no longer exists. A.R.S 23-355 regards the business owner as the employer. Read the posts over on the business section,especially the ones wrote by Calif Business Lawyer to understand the corporate veil,and corporate obligations. In fact I think I will hail him for clarification.

It's an interesting subject,that unfortunately is not always easy to grasp.
JoeC

Thank you all of you for you input. I greatly appreciate it