Golfview Manor, Inc. v. Commonwealth

414 A.2d 722, 51 Pa. Commw. 323, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1427
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 13, 1980
DocketAppeal, No. 58 C.D. 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 414 A.2d 722 (Golfview Manor, Inc. v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Golfview Manor, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 414 A.2d 722, 51 Pa. Commw. 323, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1427 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

This is an appeal by Golfview Manor from the Office of Employment Security’s1 determination and assessment of unemployment compensation contributions for the use of the Unemployment Compensation Fund.2 We affirm.

[325]*325Golfview Manor owns and operates 19 restaurants and utilizes a number of waitresses wbo are paid an hourly wage equal to one-half the minimum wage. Tips and gratuities are paid directly to the employees by customers, and retained by them. Though the employee’s manual distributed to new workers instructs tipped employees to report monthly tips over $20.00 on the back of their time cards, none adhere to the procedure. However, Golfview Manor does report employees’ tip income to the Federal Government in an amount corresponding to the difference between the hourly wage actually paid (one-half of minimum wage, and the required minimum wage). Thus, the relevant, partial accounting of the tips in question was reported on Federal Forms 941 and the W-2 issued to Golfview Manor employees.

The Office of Employment Security thereafter issued its Notice of Assessment, dated May 23,1978, to Golfview Manor for failing to include these tips used for the purpose of meeting minimum wage requirements in their quarterly contribution reports.3 After an Examiner’s Hearing on Golfview Manor’s Reassessment Petition, a denial was ordered by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry:4 “Tip income computed in qualifying Golfview Manor, Inc., the Petitioner, to meet Federal minimum wage standards shall also be included as wages within the definition of that term for purposes of an employer’s contribution and an employee’s benefits under the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law.”

[326]*326The present controversy turns upon a reading, interpretation, and application of Section 4(x)(6), 43 P.S. §753(x) (6), of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law:

(x) ‘Wages’ means all remuneration . . . paid by an employer to an individual with respect to his employment except that the term ‘wages for the purpose of paying contributions shall not include:
(6) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subsection, wages shall include all remuneration for services with respect to which a tax is required to be paid under any Federal law imposing a tax against which credit may be taken for contributions to be paid into a state unemployment fund or which as a condition for full tax credit against the tax imposed by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act are required to be included under this act. (Emphasis added.)

The initial problem exhibits a classic example of nonconforming amendatory legislation, obvious even upon a casual reading of Subsection (x)(6). Enacted in 1937 to define the term “wages,” Section 4(x)(l) to (5) was amended in 1949 to add paragraph (6), and in 1951 to add paragraphs (7) through (9).5 The inconsistent reading of “shall not” and “shall” in Subsection (x)(6) has been untouched by the courts until today..

Subsection (x) clearly labels all payments made by employer to employee for inclusion as wages. Paragraph (6), which should logically read as an exclusion, not so clearly includes as wages payments for services upon which a federal unemployment tax is to be paid under federal law. Golfview Manor claims that strict [327]*327construction demands both the subsection (x) and paragraph (6) requirements be met to enable an assessment against tips as wages. On the other hand, the Department contends that meeting either requirement is sufficient to allow an assessment. We agree. After reading the statute in light of its legislative history, the logical interpretation views paragraph (6) as an afterthought wage inclusion by the legislature, such that the “either” construction is warranted. Accordingly, we will examine each provision.

Subsection (x)

In opposition to subsection (x), Golfview Manor proposes that tips paid directly to employees by customers do not constitute wages according to this Court’s decisions in Cox’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 165, 392 A.2d 335 (1978), and Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Churchill Valley Country Club, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 430, 338 A.2d 738 (1975).

This Court held that by construing “wages” in the broadest possible manner, Churchill Valley tips could not be considered within the definition when passed directly from patron to employee or when employer acts merely as a direct funnel or “constructive trustee” for such gratuities. However, tips would be included in a wage computation for unemployment compensation purposes when the tip was either a service charge or the employees exercised significant control over their administration, such that the employees were prevented from receiving the full due amount.6 [328]*328Churchill Valley Country Club, supra, at 434, 338 A.2d at 741. In the present case, nncontroverted evidence reveals that Golfview Manor neither exercised control over employee’s gratuities nor prevented them from receiving the exact tipped amount. However, we are faced with a new and added twist.

The Department counters that subsection (x) cannot he so strictly construed where an employer pays one-half minimum wage, utilizes tips as a credit toward its minimum wage obligation, and then refuses to acknowledge the unemployment compensation fund obligation for the amount between salary and minimum wage by claiming that the gratuities were not paid by employer to employee.7 Taking into account the effect of Golfview Manor’s attempted scheme on employees, we must agree.

Pennsylvania employers must pay a yearly set percentage of overall employment wages into the unemployment cotirpensation fund.8 See Section 301(a)(1), 43 P.S. §781 (a) (1). “Wages” have clearly been defined for the purposes of subsection (x) as all remuneration paid by employer to employee. See Section 4 (x), 43 P.S. §753 (x). However, underlying the Department’s argument, this discussion, and our decision is the statutory mandate that every employer pay a fixed hourly minimum wage to each of his employees [329]*329in accordance with the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.9 The Minimum Wage Law clearly recognizes tips as an acceptable source for monies to meet the set percentage for an employer’s minimum wage obligation, provided the employee knows of the practice and directly receives these tips.10

As a Pennsylvania employer, Golfview Manor is bound to provide in some way for the payment of minimum wages in accordance with the Minimum Wage Act “wages ’ ’ definition, and to pay into the unemploy[330]*330ment compensation fund in accordance with, the Unemployment Compensation Act “wages” definition.11

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

WINTJEN v. DENNY'S, INC.
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2021
Ford v. Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group Inc.
47 Pa. D. & C.5th 157 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
414 A.2d 722, 51 Pa. Commw. 323, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golfview-manor-inc-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1980.