177 A.D. 57 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1917
The only question presented by this appeal is whether in determining the average weekly wages of the employee the tips received by him can be considered. It was stipulated that “there was a custom existing in the City of Rochester whereby users of taxicabs, upon paying their fare, gave to the drivers gratuities or tips, which is an amount in addition to the fare, and for the personal use of the driver; that such custom was known to the employer at the time he employed Warren Sloat to enter his service; that the average amount of tips so received * * * was the sum of 85^ a day, which sum he was allowed to keep for his own use, and was not required to account to his employer for the same.”
The regular wages of the deceased employee, paid by the employer, was twelve dollars a week; the tips averaged five dollars and ten cents a week, making the total earnings seventeen dollars and ten cents a week, which the Commission adopted as the basis of the award. Upon the argument each party, apparently with approval, referred to the English case of Penn v. Spiers & Pond, Ltd. (1 B. W. C. C. 401), where it was held that the tips received by a waiter in a restaurant car were a part of his earnings to be taken into consideration in fixing the basis for compensation.
The appellants distinguish the Penn case from this case by referring to the terms of the English act which bases the compensation upon earnings, while our Workmen’s Compensation Law, at section 14, provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the average weekly wages of the injured employee at the time of the injury shall be taken as the basis upon which to compute compensation or death benefits, and
We must give further attention to section 14. In three of its five subdivisions it speaks of the “average annual earnings ” and the “ annual average earnings ” of the employee, indicating that the Legislature saw no broad distinction between the word “earnings” and the word “wages,” and under the facts of this case no distinction between them is apparent. The employer and the employee knew that an average of about eighty-five cents per day would be received from tips, and clearly the compensation paid by the employer was based upon that assumption. If the employee had turned the tips over to the employer, as probably would have been his duty in the absence of an understanding to the contrary, the wages of the employee undoubtedly would have been •seventeen dollars and ten cents a week. If the employee receives from the employer twelve dollars and retains the five dollars and ten cents tips, he is getting through or from the employer seventeen dollars and ten cents per week, and if the employer paid the employee seventeen dollars and ten cents a week and the tipá were turned over to the employer, the result to each would be the same. Neither the employer nor employee contemplated that the employee should receive but twelve dollars per week for his services; each expected that he would receive on an average seventeen dollars and ten cents per week.
The employee could not have received the tips if the employer had not put him in the way of getting them, and we may well conclude that the tips were an advantage received from the employer similar in effect to board, lodging or rent furnished in addition to the money wages paid. Many times a guest at a hotel, a passenger upon a sleeper or a person receiving
■The court should treat these tips in the same manner in which the employer and employee treat them, as a part of the com
Award unanimously affirmed.