Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                           QBffice    of tfp attorney   dhnerst
    &date of Qexasi
    DAN MORALES
    ATTORNEY
    GENERAL                             June 23,1995
    Mr. William Grossenbacher                     Opinion No. DM-356
    . .
    -Or
    Texas Bmployment Commission                   Re: Authority of the Texas Employment
    101 Bast 15th street                          Commission to transfer or assign a hen or
    Austin, Texas 78778-0001                      notice of assessment based on unpaid
    wages, under chapter 61, Labor Code, to
    the wage claimant (RQ-745)
    Dear Mr. Grossenbacher:
    You ask with regard to wage claims made to the Texas Bmployment Commission
    (the ‘kxxnmission”) under subchapter D (sections 61.051 - .066), chapter 61 of the Labor
    Code, for which the commissi on has issued “hal orders” ordering payment by the
    employer, whether “the State of Texas [can] transfer or assign [a lien and/or] a Notice of
    Assessment based on unpaid wages to the wage cBimant, so the claimant might pursue
    collection efforts on his own.” By way of background we review the relevant provisions.
    An employee, other than a public employee, may ille a claim for unpaid wages with
    the commission. Labor Code $5 61.003, ,051. The commission analyzes the claim and
    issues a “prehminary wage determination order” either dismiming the claim or ordering
    payment of wages determined to be due and unpaid. The commission may include in the
    order an order to pay an administrative penalty if it determines the employer acted in bad
    t%th in not payingthewages.     Id @61.052-.053.       %therpartymayreques! a hexing’
    to contest a prelhninary wage determination order.” 
    Id. 8 61.054.
            The request for
    hearing must be made in writing not later than twenty-one days a&r the commission mails
    the parties notice of the prehminary order. Otherwise the prehminary order becomes “‘the
    tinal order of the commission for all purposes” inchnling “judicial review. . under
    [subchapter D].” 
    Id. § 61.055.
    The employer is to pay the amount ordered-less valid,
    itemized deductions-to the commission by such twenty-6rst day atIer notice of the order
    was mailed. “Payment to the commission constitutes payment to the employee for all
    purposes.” 
    Id. 5 61.056(b);
    Act ofMay 21,1993,73d Leg., RS., ch. 456, 5 2, 1993~Tex.
    Sess. Law Serv. 1833, 1834.’
    ‘The provisions
    of cbaptcr61,Labor code. wcrcculitkd in 1993. Act of May 12,1993,73d
    Leg.. RS., ch 269, 1993Tar Sss. Law Sav. 990. Theyfoimcrlyqycared as V.T.C.S. title 5155,
    which wss qxalcd by the 1993axl@ing act. Withoutrcfmncc to that reptal anotbu 1993bii
    amendedarticlc5155. Act of May 21, 1993,73dLeg, RS., ch. 456, 1993Tex. Sas. Law Serv.1833.
    pursuanttoGwcrnmentcodescction311.031(c)thc   amcndmenuntustkgivmc&ctasgartpattdchaptcr
    61.
    Mr. William Grossenbacher - Page 2         (DR-356)
    If a hearing on the preliminary order is requested, the commission must notify the
    parties of the hearing by the twenty-first day atIer receiving the request, and conduct the
    hearing within forty-five days of such notice. Labor Code Q 61.057. After the hearing-at
    which the commission may modify, aSinn, or rescind its prehminary order-the
    commission enters an order for the payment of wages and penalty amounts determined
    due and mails notice thereof to the patties. The order becomes “tinal” fourteen days after
    it is mailed unless “a party to the appeal files a written motion for rehearing” or “the
    commission reopens the hearing” before that date, however, a party may file suit in the
    proper court to appeal the “final order” within sii         days after it was mailed. 
    Id. $61.059 -
    ,062; Act ofey      21. 1993,73d Leg., R.S., ch. 456, $2, 1993 Tex. Sess. Law
    Setv. 1833, 1834. In any case, if the commission’s final order requires the employer to
    pay wages or a penalty, he is to pay such amounts to the commission within sixty days
    after the commission’s order becomes tinal. Labor Code 4 61.063; Act of May 21, 1993,
    73d Leg., RS., ch. 456, § 2, 1993 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1833, 1834.2 “Not later than the
    30th day after the date on which a claim is tinally adjudicated or otherwise resolved,” the
    commission is to pay the cBimant “wages collected under [subchapter D]” (presumably
    less any amounts remitted) along with any interest accrued. Labor Code 8 61.064.
    Your specitic concerns are with situations where there is no court appeal of the
    commission’s tinal order. “A final order . . against an employer indebtedto the statefor
    pedties or wages, unless timely appealed,” constitutes Ua lien on all the property
    belonging to the employer.” 
    Id. 5 61.081(a)
    (emphasis added). “The lien for an unpaid
    debt attaches at the time the order. . becomes final.” 
    Id. 5 61.081(b).
    Administration
    and enforcement of the hen by the commission is as for tax liens under chapter 113,
    subchapters A and B, Tax Code. 
    Id. 5 61.082.
    Liens may be recorded in the book
    entitled “State Tax Liens” kept by the county clerk. 
    Id. 5 61.083.
    Also, pursuant to an unappealed final order, the wmmission may serve a “‘notice of
    assessment” on a defaulting employer, which “is prima facie evidence of the contents of
    the notice.” Act of May 21, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 456, $2, 1993 Tex. Sess. Law
    Serv. 1833, 1834. The party served may contest the notice in court, but if he doesn’t do
    so within thirty days of setvice, the notice “shall be treated as if it were a final judgment of
    a district wurt, and shah be recorded, enforced and renewed in the same manner.” 
    Id. Noting that
    both “the administrative liens and Notices of Assessment presently
    bemg filed by Texas Employment Commission identity the claimant whose wage claim
    occasioned the final determination and order, as well as the amount of wages due, but
    p.   1898
    Mr. Wti     Grossenbacher - Page 3       (DM-356)
    that] both the administrative hen and the Notice of Assessment are tiled in the name of the
    State of Texas,” your specific question, again is whether “the State of Texas [can]
    transfer or assign [a lien based on unpaid wages and/or] a Notice of Assessment based on
    unpaid wages to the wage claimant, so the claimant might pursue collection efforts on his
    OWYL”
    In our opinion, such transfers or assignments were not contemplated by the
    legislature in the applicable provisions. Nor do we f3nd any basis in those provisions fbm
    which commission authority to make such transfers or assignments can be reasonably
    derived. See 2 TgX. JUR. 3D Auhiniszhzfive    Law 3 11(1979) (and authorities cited there)
    (state agency has only such powers as are expressly wnferred on it by statute, together
    with those necessarily implied from powers and duties expressly given or imposed). By
    “tmnsfhg”        or “assigning” the notices or hens, the wmmission would neces&ly be
    relinquishing its interest in the hens or notices. Even though the wmmission has
    considerable authority under chapter 61 -section 61.002 gives the wmmissionauthorityto
    “adopt rules as necemary to implement” the chapter-we think that the department’s
    disposing of its interest in and wntrol over the notices and liens without having obtained
    the wages owed to the claimant would be such a departure from the actual provisions of
    chapter 61 as to require 8nther legislative authorization for it to be a valid exercise of
    commission powers.
    Chapter 61 makes specitic provisions for the enforcement of the wmmission’stinal
    orders and the hens and notices of assessment derived from them. The attorney general or
    wmmission may bring suit in Travis County to mforce tinal orders from which no appeal
    has been taken. Labor Code 4 61.066; Act of May 21, 1993,73d Leg., B.S., ch. 456,s 2,
    1993 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1833, 1834. Unappealed notices of assessment “shall be
    recorded, enforced, and renewed in the same manner” as “the final judgment of a district
    wurt.” 
    Id. “If the
    liability secured by the lien is hdly paid, the wmmission shah mail a
    release to the employer.” Labor Code 3 61.084. Although the provisions of Tax Code
    chapter 113, subchapters A and B-applicable under section 61.082 to the wmmission’s
    enforcement of its liens-provide for the assignment of “judgment[s] perpetuating and
    foreclosing. . . tax lien[s] for the amount of the taxes covered in the judgment,” Tax Code
    5 113.107(a), they make no provisions for assignment or transfer of liens appropriate or
    applicable to the assignments and transfers you ask about, which we assume would not
    involve consideration, at least in amounts equal to the underlying debts. See uLru Tax
    Code $4 111.251 - .255 (specific provisions for assignment of state tax claims upon
    payment by assignee of taxes, fines, penalties, and interest due).
    Had the legislature intended to authorize the kinds of assignments or transfers you
    ask about, we think it would have specifically done so, in the manner that it has specitied
    other means of enforcement of the hens and notices of assessment. Again we conclude
    p. 1899
    Mr. W&      Grossenbacher - Page 4      (uu-356)
    that the wmmission lacks authority to transfer or assign a lien or notice of assessment
    based on unpaid wages, under chapter 61, to the wage claimants
    You also ask whether “a wage claimant for whose use and benetit the State of
    Texas [holds a hen or] has perfected a Notice of Assessment precluded from pursuing on
    his own statutory and common law remedies to get execution on that [hen or] Notice of
    Assessment because it was created in the name of the State?” We assume that you are
    asking here about situations where the wmmission has not assigned or transferred the
    liens and Notices of Assessment to the employeekhtimant. Also by “perfected a Notice of
    Assessment,” we understand you to refer to a notice of assessment that, because it was
    unwntested or upheld after judicial review, is to be “treated as if it were the tinal
    judgment of a district wurt.” See Act of May 21, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 456. 5 2,
    1993 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1833,1834.
    Wah respect to Uens, we find no authority for a person other than the
    “lienholde?‘-here, the State of Texas&to “get execution” thereon. See 50 TEX. JUIL 3D
    Liens $8 31- 33 (1986) (and authorities cited there). Also, as discussed above, we
    believe that chapter 61 of the Labor Code and the provisions of chapter 113 of the Tax
    Code referenced there provide the exclusive procedures for enforcement of the hens in
    question. Section 61.082 imposes the duties and authority of enforcing these liens on the
    wmmissioner. Similarly, as for Notices of Assessment which have wme to have the
    effect of wurt judgments, we tind no authority for a person other than the “owner” of a
    judgment-here, the State of Texas-to obtain a writ of execution thereon. See 34 TTX.
    JUR. .?G&rcemeni of Judgments$6 (1984) (and authorities cited 01ere).~
    %imilarly,aiaceassi.$mueat
    or tmnsfer,
    withoutamsidmation,ofliensandnoticesof-
    whichiwhded penaltyassmmcm owdtuthe wmmimtoumlherthantheanploye&Mmentwould
    clearlyrun afoulof amstitutional
    prohibitions
    on grants,seeTar. ComXart.III, 5 51,WCthinkthattbc
    lcgishmwWtdimvcspcciflcauyplwi~forthemvumIa           ofthtintemsufmmthelienornotiaof
    astsmmd tobe tigned or tlausferred hadit contemplatedsucha.Wigmncntsor tmnsfem.
    p.   1900
    Mr. William Grossenbacher _ Page 5     (DM-356)
    The Texas Employment Commission lacks authority to transfer
    or assign a lien or notice of assessment based on unpaid wages, under
    chapter 61, Labor Code, to the wage claimant. The wage claimant
    may not directly get execution on a lien or notice of judgment held by
    the commission in the name of the state:
    DAN MORALES
    Attorney General of Texas
    JORGE VEGA
    Pii Assistant Attorney General
    SARAH J. SHIRLEY
    Chair, Opiion Committee
    Pmpared by Wdliam Walker
    As&ant Attorney General
    p.   1901
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DM-356

Judges: Dan Morales

Filed Date: 7/2/1995

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017