*1 and Justices Justice PORITZ For affirmance —Chief GARIBALDI, POLLOCK, O’HERN, HANDLER, STEIN COLEMAN —7.

Opposed—None.

713 A.2d PETITIONER-APPELLANT, OUTLAND, v. MONMOUTH- MONA J. COMMISSION, SERVICE OCEAN EDUCATION RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. July January 1998. Argued 1998—Decided *3 (Nelson Fromer, argued appellant Bruce the cause & From brief). er, Ledwitz, attorneys; on the Wendt S. Silver, (Michals, Wahl, argued respondent

Robert the cause for Leitner, attorneys). Silver & O’Driscoll, argued

Aileen M. the cause for amicus curiae New (Zazzali, Zazzali, Nowak, Jersey Fagella Education Association & O’Driscoll, attorneys; Richard A A Ms. Friedman and Kathleen briefs). Naprstek, on the letter John, Cynthia Legal Department, argued J. Director the cause Jersey for amicus curiae New School Boards Association. opinion The of the Court was delivered O’HERN, J. granted

We certification to consider an asserted conflict be- tween the decision below and that in v. Porter Elizabeth Board of Education, N.J.Super. (App.Div.), 656 A.2d 443 certif. denied, (1995). 142 N.J. 663 A.2d 1361 The issue in each case contract, employed is whether a teacher under a ten-month in- jured year, at work the school is entitled to compensation during benefits in workers’ the summer period. recess conflict interpretation involves the of N.J.S.A. 18A:30-2.1. employees

That section ensures that school who are unable to *4 report injuries they to work in because of received the course of their receive their full salaries and lose no sick leave during period disability. of their The section reads as follows:

Whenever entitled to sick leave under this is absent from any employee, chapter, arising his as a result a caused an accident out of post duty personal by and in the course of his his shall to such employment, employer pay wages full or for the of such absence for to one calendar salary period up year having charged without such absence to annual sick leave or the accumulated 18A:30-3____ sick leave sections 18A:30-2 and amount of provided Any salary to this section shall be reduced or employee pursuant paid payable disabili- work[ers’] award made for the amount by any ty. 18A:30-2.1.] A

[N.J.S. I employed by Edu- Mona J. Outland is the Monmouth-Oeean Board.) (We cation shall refer to it as the Service Commission. children, emotionally A Outland suffered teacher disturbed disabling injuries when one of students assaulted severe and her 22, April to work from her on 1994. She was unable to return 23, 30,1994, period April 1994 to June when the summer vacation commenced. injury, weekly salary

At the time of her Outland’s was $593. school, salary that Despite her absence from she received 100% of ($415) year: seventy percent by over the remainder of the school way benefits under a section of the Work- Act, 34:15-12, remaining N.J.S.A. and the ers’ ($178) under N.J.S.A. thirty percent 18A:30-2.1. year normally paid are on the of an academic

Teachers basis year. Most teachers thus do not receive rather than calendar summer, pay during the when schools are recess. cheeks 18A:29-3, however, allows school boards to offer aca- N.J.S.A. demic-year employees option percent to have ten of their paid the summer. A statement salaries withheld and then over accompanying legislation paid that the amounts recites employees who that so-called “twelve-month the summer to select plan” preceding to have earned as of the June are deemed been L. Statement, 1979, Assembly, c. Introductory No. 30th. however, Outland, had not elected to be on the twelve- 495. therefore, year, had plan. month the end of the school Outland salary agreed pay that the Board had her received 100% of the year. for that school Al- disability payments ceased after June 1994.

Outland’s disability payments though dispute would the Board did- *5 year beginning of the next academic had have to resume at the then, to return to work the Board Outland not been able recess, pay to over the summer which refused to benefits Outland 31,1994. July August 1 to ran from temporary disability in filed a motion for Outland Compensation. argued that the Board’s Division of Workers’ She weekly equal seventy percent wage, of her payment of benefits 34:15-12, paying pursuant the Board had been to N.J.S.A. which claimed, in should continue over the summer. She has not neither appeal, obligated by the Division nor on that the Board was remaining thirty percent pay 18A:30-2.1 to of her N.J.S.A. weekly salary during the summer recess. pending, Appellate her matter was Division rendered

While N.J.Super. A.2d 443. Donald its Porter decision. 281 in Porter was a teacher Elizabeth who sustained back (the teaching. while The Division of Workers’ Division), among rulings, other ordered the Elizabeth Board pay temporary disability Education to Porter benefits over the appeal, Appellate summer. On the school board’s Division holding interpreting In affirmed the Division’s on that issue. 18A:30-2.1, Legislature’s N.J.S.A. the court focused on the use of year.” “calendar The court was “convinced that the term Legislature, utilizing year’ the term ‘calendar rather than year’ applicable period, [intended] ‘school as the time school employees fully compensated board be for the time which they temporarily regard are disabled without to whether that disability year falls within the school or the summer recess.” 281 N.J.Super. Appellate 656 A.2d 443. The effect of the had Division’s decision was teachers who elected be on regular plan, temporarily ten-month who were disabled as a injuries employment, result of suffered the course of their year beyond end of the school would whose disabilities lasted temporary disability to receive benefits under workers’ continue compensation during regardless the summer recess of whether jobs. planned had to take summer those teachers Porter and awarded Outland compensation judge followed benefits, $3,675.71 in workers’ *6 salary multiplied by the weekly equal to of her an amount 70% appealed. The Board in the summer recess. number of weeks compensation of the the award Appellate Division reversed The decision, panel the Porter the Outland judge. Disagreeing with 18A:30-2.1 nor the Workers’ that neither N.J.SA concluded injured a provide workers with Compensation Act was intended to Super, 295 N.J. at wages that were not lost. means to recover that Outland had there was no evidence 685 A .2d 68. Because summer, during the and because any over the “lost” teacher, duty” post of as a [her] was not “absent from summer she that neither of the relevant statutes Appellate Division held disability the summer. Id. payments to over entitled her 685 A .2d68.

II Appellate Division’s agree so much of We with provisions sick leave that holds that the Outland decision compensation the workers’ do not serve to amend education laws benefits an entitlement to laws to create parties have under those laws. not otherwise exist would should read N.J.S.A 18A:30-2.1 the issue of whether we briefed not We need resolve pari materia with N.J.SA 34:15-12. in that Outland portion of N.J.S.A 18A:30-2.1 because the issue carry the does not have us read into N.J.S.A 34:15-12 would Legislature carry. The used meaning would like it to Outland to establish year” in 18A:30-2.1 order “calendar N.J.SA term obligation pay to the full a board’s maximum duration of school any affirma injured employee, not to establish sort of salary of an employer pay benefits the summer obligation of an to tive not have point year when the teacher would any other a Educ. salary teaching. Williams v. Board a See earned 31, 40-41, (App. 469 A.2d 58 Township, N.J.Super. 192 Deptford Div.1983) year” language in N.J.S.A. (construing “calendar require compensation

18A:30-2.1 to for covered absences within days injury). It of date of did use the term “calendar year” injured recovery to confer on workers a double or windfall. Nor would the drafters of the Workers’ Act have recovery. (entitling pro favored double See N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 compensation viders workers’ benefits recover amounts injured employee by parties, up third to the amount of workers’ Colatrella, compensation paid); Midland Ins. Co. v. (1986) 612, 618, (affirming application N.J. 510 A.2d 30 of workers’ compensation proceeds by injured lien to recovered worker from policy, previously his uninsured motorist when worker had recov benefits). ered workers’ understood, Correctly significance year” of the “calendar language inability began for a teacher whose to work toward the year through end of a school and lasted the summer is that the *7 18A:30-2.1, payments ceasing during due under N.J.S.A. after the taught, summer months when the teacher would not have would in fall have resume the when the teacher would otherwise have payments returned to the classroom. The would then continue anniversary until the first of the commencement of the teacher’s disability, provided disability long. the lasted that 18A:30-2.1, in

Understood the context of N.J.S.A the compensation temporary disability payable workers’ benefits un 34:15-12, serve, during year, der N.J.S.A. the school as a credit disability toward occupationally injured the income due to the During teacher under the sick leave statute. the summer recess period compensation temporary disability the workers’ benefits replace serve to the lost from other because occupational injury. payments the No are due under the sick during injured leave act the summer because the teacher is not duty” “post absent from her as a teacher. The Workers’ Act, hand, specifically on the other is not tied so particular occupation. injured teacher should be entitled to compensation temporary disability workers’ benefits to resume whatever prove if can that she is unable summer she have had. type otherwise would of work she Therefore, constitute a seeks do not payments that Outland replacement of recovery for her but rather a or windfall double lost, by a actually covered benefit whether income from work under the argues that entitlement program or not. The Board in force at Compensation Act is based on the contract Workers’ all of the injury, that because Outland received time of the contract, any further her money due to her under that was argument is Board’s overcompensate her. The payments would (the teaching of hire the contract premised on the thesis contract) disability are temporary benefits determines whether to an em- compensation benefits It that workers’ paid. reasons “wages” employee, a term that is on the of an ployee are based money pay “under under N.J.S.A. 34:15-37 as the rate defined money being due over the employment contract.” There no contract, that no teaching Board reasons summer under argument is that if disability in the are due. The flaw benefits for payable only during the time that were benefits worker, existence, a seasonal were to have been contract of hire of a near the end a farm laborer who suffered such as disability season, benefits receive no harvest would contract of hire would have was over. The after the season expired. no such restriction agree petitioner that there is

We with Temporary Compensation Act. the Workers’ work,” N.J.S.A. until the to resume payable are “able -38, to have just contract for hire was until the 34:15-12 *8 employer could reasoning, a callous expired. the Board’s Under disability to an at- benefits responsibility for avoid all accident, had, the by asserting that it before employee will money being no due employee. There planned to terminate the terminated), (it employment would have been the contract under injured disability due to the benefits would be no there dissenting in that circumstance our surmise that worker. We 540 might following logic

members fall the of the Board. short However, understanding sufficiently per- stirred to their logic ceive in the of the Board. case Mona Outland failed dissenting colleagues establishing Our cite numerous cases that injured employee may compensation temporary an collect workers’ only employee wages. post if that has lost See 546-47, proposition dispute. 713 A .2d at 468-69. That is not in dispute injured employee may in What is is whether an collect compensation temporary disability wages workers’ benefits for job. claimant would have earned from another None of the cases by compensation wages cited the dissent limit a claimant to for job contrast, place. lost from the on which In took support injured employee’s there is well-reasoned for an entitle ment to for would have earned Comm’n, employment. from off-season See Powell v. Industrial 7 518, 553, (1968) Ariz.App. (calculating 441 P.2d 556 teacher’s average monthly wage, compensation purposes, by for workers’ nine, dividing salary by opposed teacher’s annual as to twelve months, reasoning by the months not covered board, contract with the “[the school time was her teacher’s] own”); Comm’n, Dominquez v. 22 Ariz.App. Industrial (1974) (setting P.2d “average aside the calculation of monthly wage” picker hearing of a seasonal fruit where officer multiplied monthly wage by potential the worker’s of $389.63 months, duration of dividing product of five then twelve; noting hearing that a officer should consider “prior whether claimant’s work record indicated that he had continually employed year been for twelve months of the jobs,” different seasonal in which case the award could be tailored “employee’s particular to the accurately situation” to reflect more earning capacity); § the claimant’s (Longshore 33 U.S.CA. Act) that, (setting and Harbor Workers’ forth compensation purposes, workers’ average earnings” the “annual injured longshoreman, who “shall not have worked such employment during substantially year the whole of the immediate ly preceding injury,” equal shall “three hundred times the *9 wage salary six-day for a worker and two average daily or daily average wage salary a sixty times the or for hundred and worker, employment in five-day he shall have earned such which during days employed”). when so colleagues, ignore the dissenting cannot

Unlike our we during the reality supplement often their income teachers mortgage Many teachers commitments on summer. base others, For expectation supplemental a summer income. sum building college in child’s fund. two- jobs a The mer are essential special category. in a Mona places month recess teachers Outland capacity on a lost to work an extra claiming is not benefits based eight-hour day. Nor hours the end of an work is she few up claiming opportunity pick for to some extra compensation a lost She, teachers, during paid week’s like most has cash a vacation. off, during due entire which neither work nor income is season employee, is a like under the contract. She seasonal fact, wrap gifts. crops harvest Christmas In a laborer hired to treatise, Larson, uses in his a teach Dean workers’ Larson, 2 Arthur prime example employee. his er as a seasonal 60.22(a) (1989). Compensation § The Law Workmen’s employee’s Legislature never intended that an seasonal could have obligation fortuitously employer its to shield an from status would significant opportunity compensate the loss of to earn such income. ability paid

A choose to be on a twelve-month teacher’s to 18A:29-3, basis, does not make the teacher’s pursuant to N.J.S.A. paid over the job any We noted above that salaries less seasonal. who to be on the employees board choose summer school to have earned as of the plan twelve-month are deemed been plan The selection this twelve-month preceding June 30th. receipt of income nothing than a decision to defer the more plan injured A previously teacher on twelve-month earned. compen year entitled both workers’ would be school additional benefits disability benefits sation be “earned” leave act. Those benefits would afforded the sick as June 30th but deferred into the summer accordance with (We these cash teacher’s choice. illustrate flows *10 Appendix opinion.) planned to Had this the teacher to work off-season, during injury prevented the had the her from so, doing would to the teacher be entitled receive additional disability compensation temporary during workers’ benefits the per pay period during summer. received Benefits the summer uninjured greater pay would be than the an checks of plan, who that a selected the twelve-month but difference is meaningless original of consequence the decision to defer income during year. earned the school short, agree

In would we with the Board that Outland temporary disability would not to be entitled benefits if Outland summer, planned perhaps vacationing Jersey to relax all at the shore. In that the benefits a represent ease would windfall. But payment the of benefits would not a create windfall if planned during Outland to work the summer recess and injury following had her prevented through her from with that plan. contrary, deny to payments On the based on lost summer purpose would frustrate the the compen of workers’ system, compensate sation is “to upon which for the inroad the earning capacity the victim industrial mishap.” full-time Co., 440, Managers Maver Dwelling v. 34 N.J. 170 A.2d 35 (1961) C.J.) added). (Weintraub, (emphasis accept cannot

We therefore the Board’s contention that the sum of salary prior the to her Outland received and her may disability benefits not the exceed amount she was year. due to earn as income over the entire accept school To the Board’s contention make would second-class citizens of teachers employees. Although contrast to other seasonal a seasonal em ployee’s hourly, daily weekly benefits be must based on the or wage provided hiring “under the contract of in force at the time of accident,” 34:15-37, the employee’s aggregate N.J.S.A. a seasonal recovery compensation temporary disability workers’ has necessary relationship no aggregate the amount due to him injury. at the time the We under the contract in force her Act is “to Compensation repeat purpose of the Workers’ that earning upon inroad full-time worker] for the compensate [the Maver, mishap.” supra, 34 the victim of industrial capacity of out 35. teachers work months N.J. at 170 A.2d Most twelve just as should year, ten. A teacher such Mona Outland earning capacity for the months of compensated be loss of two by during assault the loss is caused student when year. school hand, great dissenting are at our members

On the other as note, intended to Act is not pains to Workers’ does not are not lost. The record compensate for that income summer. actually lost disclose that Outland likely parties arose point on because lack of evidence are statutori- opinion that the Porter held teachers concluded ly under workers’ entitled summertime benefits *11 disposition proper as teachers. The virtue of their may have the so that Outland of this case is therefore to remand income prove injuries caused her to lose opportunity to that her employment. summer See she otherwise earned from could have (1960). Cohen, 499-500, 161 A.2d 473 Knight v. N.J. may be not whether the Board parties have addressed The forth offsetting principles under the set entitled to an credit (1984). Co., A.2d 544 96 N.J. Young v. Western Electric has considered The Court therefore not issue. The Division judgment Appellate is reversed. Division of Workers’

matter is remanded any petitioner suffered loss whether determine employment. from summer

HANDLER, J., dissenting. employed temporarily disabled teacher

The holds that a Court may seek by the of education a contract board under ten-month covering employer her recover from already complete- period, though she was recess even the summer The a result for lost as teacher. ly compensated her beyond provisions of the goes well by the Court reached I, therefore, Act. dissent. Compensation Workers’

I - Act, 34:15-1 N.J.S.A the Workers’ Under (the Act), compensation from the is entitled to employee injury ... “personal suffers employer when employment, of of course arising [] out of and accident employer is lawfully imputed negligence of the which the actual The Act is 34:15-1. proximate cause.” N.J.S.A. the natural and provide an being “to primary purpose legislation with its social injury, speedy with a work-connected employee, he suffers when Plumb remedy wages.” loss of Cureton v. Joma and efficient (1962). Co., 326, 331, 184 A.2d644 ing Heating 38 N.J. & provided in payments is the schedule statute heart disability, producing “For 34:15-12. N.J.S.A weekly worker’s compensation 70% the is] [the schedule injury____ of the This time wages received however, not, disability, period such be shall added). (emphasis N.J.S.A. 34:15-12a beyond 400 weeks.” *13 546

‘Wages” money are as at defined “the rate which the service recompensed hiring rendered is under the contract at force added). (emphasis the time the accident.” N.J.S.A. 34:15-37 temporary disability, For are to these benefits be calculated according 34:15-38, provisions to the of N.J.S.A. which states as follows: To calculate the of weeks fraction is number and thereof that payable compensation for determine the number of calendar from temporary disability, days disability including and as a full the that the is first continue day unable to day employee including

work reason of also by accident, the Sundays holidays, Saturdays, up working to the first is able to resume work and continue day employee thereat____ resulting whole number and will be the permanently sevenths which on for is account of required period compensation payable disability. [Ibid,] sum, In awarding temporary the scheme for disability benefits that, first, requires arising as the result of an accident out employment, employee temporarily the course of must be 34:15-1; Next, disabled. N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. 34:15-12a. if the disabled, employee is temporarily employee is entitled to looking 70% wages by receive of his her as determined at the employment contract at the time of the accident. 34:15- N.J.S.A. 12a; N.J.S.A. Finally, 34:15-37. once of the rate is determined, employee the amount of time receives benefits is determined employee when the returns work. N.J.S.A. 34:15-38. inquiry

The threshold is temporarily whether the worker is (“[C]ompensation disabled. N.J.S.A 34:15-12a shall be dur period ing the disability.”). such The Act itself does not define disability.” “temporary concept It is a contextual that relates the disability to the work and to the from work. Courts attempting to recognized articulate definition for the term have - relationship disability the functional necessary between and its on wages. Liberty effect work and In Calabria v. Insur Mutual Co., (1950), 4 ance N.J. 71 A.2d 550 stated in Court dictum employee that an cannot make a claim (“Calabria being without absent from work. Id. at A.2d temporary disability. He not claim for could because made no work”). rule, Such a basic had no absence from there been employee if temporarily is not disabled *14 work, losing from has wages and thus that been from work absent See, e.g., Jersey. repeated by times the courts of New numerous (1984) 226, Co., 220, A.2d 544 Elec. 96 N.J. 475 Young v. Western of disability payments are in lieu compensation ... (“temporary Co., 198, 208, 219 47 wages”); Taylor-Wharton v. N.J. those Ort (1966) disability represents partial a (“[Temporary A .2d 866 Kearny, wages.”); Town for of current Gorski v. substitute loss of 213, 215, (App.Div.1989)(“Temporary N.J.Super. 236 565 A.2d 415 Assocs., salary.”); in lieu Electronic disability benefits are 20, 15, N.J.Super. (App.Div. 266 A.2d 601 Heisinger, Inc. 111 v. 1970) (“Petitioner temporary here entitled to no award for is wage a disability no loss as result because she suffered current occupation.”); her Motors an ailment attributable to General 520, Falcone, N.J.Super. A.2d v. 130 327 Acceptance Corp. (“The wages.’”) (quoting is (Cty.Ct.1974) 699 award ‘in lieu 473, 477, Welfare, 129 Dept. N.J.Super. 43 v. Newark Williams Worthington of Educ., 23 (Cty.Ct.1957)); v. Bd. A.2d 56 Plainfield (“[P]etitioner 1944) 14, 19, (Dept. 40 A.2d 9 Labor N.J. Misc. [benefits], being no temporary disability there any not to entitled Co., time.”); v. 18 N.J. compensable lost Krov Centaur Const. 1940) (“The petitioner 593, 596, (Dept. A .2d Labor Misc. 15 619 work, to having no time from his is not entitled lost disability.”). major Com temporary treatise on Workers’ 1C Arthur proposition. this See pensation is in accord with 57.12(b) Larson, § at 10- Compensation Law Larson’s Workmen’s (1993) temporary partial ... occasion (“Temporary total ordinarily relatively controversy, they since are established little loss.”) wage by evidence of actual direct straightforward from escape no in this case There should be is not temporarily disabled if the worker rule that a worker is suffering wage attributable and thus not loss absent from work and, a April as her late that work. Outland suffered of the until June the end injury, of the missed work result year period; during school and her contract time absence work, wage from she suffered a loss to that work. attributable Hence, during her occurred limited was period, appropriately and she was awarded disability benefits based on those definitional elements. For the months, however, summer Outland was not absent from work nor wages she loss in did suffer a because there was no work from she considering possible employ- which was absent. Even outside ment, wages did Outland not suffer loss of under the Act only because N.J.S.A. 34:15-37’s definition of looks Thus, contract at the force time of accident. disabled,” “temporarily meaning Outland was not of the within Act, disabled, temporarily being the summer months. Not any Outland was not entitled to benefits for the months. summer statute, if properly reading Even were Court the result Provenzano, the Court reaches should be v. avoided. See State *15 318, (1961) 322, N.J. (ruling any 169 A.2d 135 in that endeavor statutory construction, involving an important maxim to consider that “a is statute will not be construed to lead to absurd results. All rules of construction are proposi subordinate to that obvious tion.”). The Court’s that can conclusion Outland recover benefits she wages if lost over the summer attributable to some kind other will lead to anomalous results the of the context legislative statute and scheme.

The purpose of the Act provide portion employee’s is to a of the salary when wage the suffers a loss as a of a result injury. “Compensation work-related to be a was benefit earned. right It was to be a matter grace any and not of or related way Magor 82, 85, to the dole.” Moore v. 27 Corp., Car N.J. 141 (1958). provide A.2d 536 To summer for teach benefits full-time ers who a are on ten-month contract employed and who are not under their contract over the summer is an extraordinary and light untoward result in purpose the Act’s asks Division the —it payments of Workers’ to order for the teacher beyond her salary. actual earned

549 the sick reaches is even less tenable when The result the Court is into the Education Title taken consideration. chapter of leave 18A:30-2.1, employee is entitled the school board N.J.S.A Under salary employee’s period of full for the to be the year Thus, injured during receives the school a teacher absence. salary from a combination his or her entire A under the Title. supplemental and benefits Education benefits place over the summer would the continuing of benefits award more than their position paying employees the school board in surely are unwarrant completed Such results full-time contract. (“If 60.22(a) Larson, § 10-715 a school supra, 2 at ed. Cf. $2,000 teacher, month for nine months of the example, paid is a earning on capacity calculate year, is no reason to there months.”). $2,000 month for Other basis of a twelve unrealistic similar comparable faced situations under jurisdictions that have awarding that laws have also concluded workers’ See, e.g., summer months would be irrational. over the Minturn, Wash.App. P.2d 601 v. School Dist. No. 401 (1993). Case, (1996); Mass. 624 N.E.2d 564 Herbst’s attempts to illus opinion the Court’s appendix The included in receiving compensation benefits over a worker’s trate that teacher recovery.” receiving a Ante summer “double would be. example, 544-45, In the Court’s a teacher 713 A.2d at 466-67. $14,672whereas receiving would receive benefits over summer teacher, again would receive non-injured example, in the Court’s $16,800. is problem example with that the Court is to total combined assuming appropriate comparison August. April receive between earnings the teacher would misleading. bargain did not comparison is The school board That July August money in months of pay the teacher *16 Thus, compari example. the correct that the Court includes its $14,672 the receive between teacher would son is between injured receiving over August if benefits April and she were $10,800 school she receive from the the summer and the would injured. Obvi April August had she not been between board compensa including ously, would receive workers the amount she tion over the of summer months is in excess the amount in her (That regardless contract with the school board. is true of paid on plan.) whether she is ten-month twelve-month The majority’s wages inclusion of the summer its illustration is merely attempt to mask this fact.

Highlighting the anomalous nature conclusion Court’s is reasoning that proves any under its if Outland wages she lost over summer, require N.J.S.A. 34:15-37 would that Outland be temporary disability benefits over the summer at the rate of $415 per seventy percent week because that is her at the time injury. hypothetical job her If Outland’s summer was a mini- wage job week, paying roughly mum per her $200 the Act as interpreted by require the Court would nonetheless the school pay higher school-year board to salary. Outland based on her reading provision alternative would be into the Act a that Out- temporary disability land’s change to benefits would a different summer; however, rate over the reading provision that into the legislation. Act judicial would be bold form of provision No such exists, anomaly paying and the Outland more over summer than she job would highlights otherwise have made her summer problematic majority’s how reasoning is.

II The Court public policy advances its own notions of as a basis for its conclusion that Outland temporary disability is entitled to benefits over the summer. The Court claims is there no restriction in the Act that limit recovery should for seasonal expresses workers. The Court its concern over seasonal workers by stating that “[t]he flaw in the argument [school board’s] if temporary only payable benefits were the time that the existence, contract of hire worker, were have been in a seasonal such as a farm laborer who suffered an near the end of a season, harvest would receive no after the season was over.” A Ante at .2d In taking 464. prospect consideration, seasonal into the Court

551 implications this genuine policy of beyond facts and ventures the employment is well-intentioned. over seasonal This concern case.5 recognized acknowledged by this Court always been It has Assoc., Vasquez E.g., v. Glassboro Service Legislature. and the (1980) Inc., (protecting housing the A. 1156 83 415 2d N.J. Shack, workers); v. 58 N.J. migrant farm State interests (1971) private (allowing non-profit organization onto .2d 277 A 369 workers); -41 34:9A-1 to migrant farm N.J.S.A. property to assist (Seasonal Act). however, serve, It to should not Farm Labor adopted policy to advance a social not warp a clear statute or Legislature. the inis concern over seasonal workers

The root of Court’s calculating benefits. Court provision 34:15-38’s N.J.S.A required the summer months the calculation includes reasons that requires payment period the entire provision over because the reading work.” Such a is “able to resume until merely describes provision 34:15-38 from converts N.J.S.A granting provision the substantive to calculate benefits to a how terms, though, By its N.J.S.A. right own receive benefits. only if calculating there process 34:15-38 describes summer, disability.” was not “temporary Outland is a Over losing any she she not “temporarily disabled” because was at time from her otherwise received would have Thus, summer. to benefits over the injury. she was not entitled misreading of 34:15- really N.J.S.A. is behind the Court’s What provisions not the actual policy is its own determinations hypothetical majority’s use of the in the the Act. That evident lay going it off employer claims employee whose at-will was 539-40, majority 464. The 713 A.2d at employee. See ante employee to the statute sympathy its for that distort allows employee nor an at-will case—one that does involve Outland’s eighty-five noting had of the Act we have not in the over years It is worth involving workers the status seasonal controversies over cases any reported under the Act. period Furthermore, of employment. majori- indefinite in the ty’s hypothetical, employer lays employee only if the off the employee sought compensation benefits, because the worker’s *18 employer unlawfully firing employee would be in for the retaliation seeking Firing employee those benefits. under those circum- by 34:15-39.1; clearly stances is forbidden Act. the N.J.S.A. 668, (1981). Lolly Copygraphics, v. 85 A.2d N.J. 428 1317 holding The crux of reading the Court’s is its mistaken the into provision Act a employees. in favor of seasonal Were we to have provision Compensation a in providing our Workers Act a (as wages employee’s earnings calculation based on the annual Arizona, why does is which the resolution of the two Arizona cases 540, 465, by majority, cited the see at ante 713A.2d at from differs reach), might the agree majority’s conclusion we we with the However, Jersey’s Compensation conclusion. New Workers Act wages Rather, does not in that squarely annualize context. it question provision wages answers the at hand in its are “the money recompensed rate which the is service rendered under hiring the contract of in force at time accident.” difference, N.J.S.A. 34:15-37. Because of that neither Arizona Act, Longshore law nor the and Harbor Workers’ 540, 465, see ante at A.2d at in determining 713 relevant how compensate injured Jersey. a teacher in New

The deny Court also cites as a reason for its conclusion that “to payments based lost employment on summer would frustrate the purpose compensation system.” 542, of the workers’ Ante at 713 A.2d at purpose system 466. The Court finds the of the in Mover Dwelling Co., 440, (1961). v. Managers 34 N.J. 170 A.2d 35 Court, According to the that case shows that an should be compensated earning for his capacity. “full-time” But the ignores Mover, Court holding which is that unless “employee’s jointly engaged by full time is a of employ number ers,” 444, 35, “singles 34 N.J. at 170 A.2d the Act out employment injury requires finding weekly wage of the alone,” 446, 35; with reference to it id. at 170 A. 2d see also Greenwich, 78, Township N.J. A.2d 848 v. Tomarchio (1977) though apparently (reaffirming even view is “[t]his Mover Jersey”). The selective citation to case unique to New Court’s part of relevant to Outland’s situation —that ignores the Mover injured they worker relate to an discussing benefits as clearly limits the rate of multiple employers. That section with compensating for the loss of benefits to not other at the time of wages of the opinion not address at all employments. The Court’s here does holding in this Mover. finally accepting the school board’s reason *19 inapplicable

hourly, daily, weekly employees are to Outland’s Using provisions conclude that “Outland should be those to case. earning capacity,” months of ante compensated for the loss of two added), judicial (emphasis open is an act of A .2dat 466 re-writing of a statute.

Ill policy of opens a Pandora’s box opinion in this case Court’s goal providing all worthwhile of seasonal issues. It embraces the designed to overcome the economic losses employees however, so, disability. to It does oblivi- attributable greater prerogatives and under- Legislature’s stronger ous to the employees should of and how seasonal standing respect whether constitutes Legislature is for the to decide what protected. It be wages, employment, significance of the source of seasonal of dual and payment, accommodation appropriate rates implications employ- full-time employments, and the successive The entitlement partial-year that is on a basis. ment subject employees complex and as seasonal is difficult teachers public consequences with for education that not should be resolved cavalierly judiciary. hardly Legislature

One can assume the will believe that opinion only explaining confirming existing in this is Court legislative year, plan. Jersey spends roughly Each New 57% budget Chiles, its school on salaries and Nick benefits. A Lesson 23, 1998, Spending, Ledger, in School Newark Star Mar. at 1. betrays The Court compels fiscal indifference when it an increase expenditures misreadings in those based on of clear statutes forays public policy adventurous into regarding right is for what hypothetical average employees, seasonal dramatically who differ your prototypical may from Legislature teacher. The well believe are teachers not be treated as employees other seasonal and that their generally well-protected interests are and secured. light Especially ongoing of the funding controversy, school we extremely wary ordering spend should be the schools to more money compensate job teachers for summer loss when the Legislature has not so mandated. it public Whether is sound policy say. us to would, therefore,

I affirm Appellate the decision of the Division ruling and let stand the Outland is not entitled to disability benefits over the summer months.

Chief Justice PORITZ and join Justice GARIBALDI in this opinion.

For POLLOCK, O’HERN, reversal and remandment —Justices STEIN and COLEMAN-4. PORITZ,

For Justice and Justices affirmance —Chief *20 HANDLER and GARIBALDI —3. notes Court the Act. citizens” under ing would make teachers “second-class only .2d are covered Ante at 713 A at 466. Because teachers 34:15-37 that are by general provision N.J.S.A hiring at the time of the the “contract of force determined accident,” provisions in 34:15-37 for specific the more N.J.S.A