• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Cook Brown LLP

Let’s Keep the Workplace Working

  • Home
  • About
  • People
    • Dennis B. Cook
    • Ronald W. Brown
    • Brian D. Bertossa
    • Terry A. Wills
    • Carrie E. Bushman
    • Lisa V. Ryan
    • Barbara A. Cotter
    • Stephen R. McCutcheon
    • Alexis Gabrielson
    • Sarah M. Woolston
    • Daniel F. C. Kozieja
    • Zachary Rankin
    • Karina Sandoval
  • Practices
    • Employment Litigation
    • Labor Relations
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Wage and Hour
    • Prevailing Wage
    • Personnel Policies
    • Construction Litigation
    • Workplace Investigations
  • Programs
  • Updates
  • Contact
  • Careers
Home > Wage and Hour > California Law on Commission Payments – Make it Official and Make it Clear

Terry Wills / October 9, 2012

California Law on Commission Payments – Make it Official and Make it Clear

Paying employees on a commission basis is a common practice for retail, manufacturing and service industries employers. Until several years ago, California employers were free to make commission arrangements with employees by letter, verbally, or over a handshake. However, effective January 1, 2013, California businesses are required to document all employee commission compensation arrangements in writing or such agreements may be unenforceable. (See Labor Code section 2751 as amended). The new law states:

By January 1, 2013 whenever an employer enters into a contract of employment with an employee for services to be rendered within this state and the contemplated method of payment of the employee involves commissions, the contract shall be in writing and shall set forth the method by which the commissions shall be computed and paid. Labor Codes 2751(a).

The new law will also require employers “to give a signed copy of the contract to every employee who is a party thereto and shall obtain a signed receipt for the contract from each employee.” Labor Code section 2751(b). Court decisions on commission disputes almost exclusively rely on the plain meaning of a commission agreement. Thus, it is crucial that managers evaluate any commission documents provided to employees and be certain they contain clear, unambiguous terms and conditions.

In July, 2012 Verizon Wireless was able to defeat a class action lawsuit due to its properly drafted commission plan with its California sales representatives. Verizon’s written plan established that after a guaranteed minimum base pay, sales representatives received advance payments of their anticipated commissions which were not actually earned until the expiration of a chargeback period during which customers had the right to cancel the service. The plan specified that deductions could be made from the advanced amounts (if services were cancelled) to calculate the final earnings paid during a pay period. A Verizon sales representative challenged the company’s written advance payment and chargeback plans, claiming the plans constituted a “secret underpayment of wages” under Labor Code section 223. The sales rep sought to represent a class of employees and seek civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The sales rep contended the initial payment of commission monies should be regarded as earned wages (not advances) making the later deductions improper under the Labor Code. The Court ruled in favor of Verizon noting that its written plans were clear and unambiguous that monies paid up front “were advances, not wages, and the chargeback provision did not violate the Labor Code because Verizon Wireless may legally advance commission payments to its retail sales representatives before completion of all conditions for payment, and charge back any excess advance over commissions earned against future advances should the conditions not be satisfied.” See Deleon v. Verizon Wireless. The Court rejected the sales rep’s argument that he and others did not understand the chargeback provisions of the commission plan, noting that the reps received copies of the well-drafted compensation plans, received training on how the chargeback provision operated, and received commission statements setting forth commission advances and chargebacks.

This case provides a good example of how proper drafting and implementation of a commission agreement can save the day in contentious litigation. If you or your company needs assistance with agreement drafting, please contact an attorney at Cook Brown, LLP.

Filed Under: Wage and Hour

Terry Wills

Terry is an astute and persuasive litigator in defense of companies and management faced with wrongful discharge, discrimination, and sexual harassment lawsuits in state and federal courts and in arbitration. She is particularly known for her success with wage and hour issues, unfair competition and trade secret protections, employee benefits, employment contracts, drug testing, leaves of absence, disability, terminations, discipline, reductions in force, and severance arrangements, as well as mediation services to a multitude of businesses and public entities through civil alternative dispute resolution programs. Read More

Primary Sidebar

Cook Brown LLP - Send me updates!

Send Me Updates!

Keep up with the ever-evolving challenges of California state and federal law in employment litigation, labor relations, prevailing wage, wage and hour, personnel policies, construction litigation, and workplace investigations.

Privacy Policy

Topics

Footer

Cook Brown, LLP

2407 J Street, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 442-3100

  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Google Maps

Search:

Copyright © 2025 Cook Brown LLP · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer · Site Design by Delos Incorporated

  • Home
  • About
  • People
  • Practices
  • Programs
  • Updates
  • Contact
  • Careers