Dixon v. Postlewait Glass Co.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 21506,21506 |
| Citation | 238 S.W.2d 93,241 Mo.App. 174 |
| Parties | DIXON et al. v. POSTLEWAIT GLASS CO. et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Watson, Ess, Whittaker, Marshall & Enggas, Douglas Stripp and Byrne F. Martin, all of Kansas City, for appellants.
Wilfred Wimmell, Mack Hency, Kansas City, for respondents.
This is a Workmen's Compensation case. The question here presented is whether or not the Industrial Commission of Missouri erred in holding that the monthly payments by the Federal Government to deceased constituted a part of deceased's wage history for the purpose of determining his earnings. The question is one of first impression in this state. It has been ably presented by counsel.
Ralph E. Dixon was killed on July 1, 1946, while working as a warehouseman and metal fabricator at the Postlewait Glass Company plant in Kansas City, Missouri. At the time of his death he was 39 years of age and left surviving his widow and infant son.
Deceased's dependents, respondents here, hereinafter referred to as claimants, filed a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commission against appellants, hereinafter referred to as Employer and Insurer. The sole matter of controversy was the amount of death benefits to be received by claimants.
Deceased, Ralph E. Dixon, was employed by Postlewait Glass Company on February 11, 1946. Prior thereto he was in the United States Navy. Before entering the Navy he had been employed as a tool and die worker at North American Aviation Company in Kansas City. As a veteran of World War II, he was entitled to benefits under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, 38 U.S.C.A. Sec. 693 et seq., which is commonly known as the G. I. Bill of Rights.
When the hiring of Dixon by Employer was under discussion, it was suggested by Employer's assistant manager that Dixon be given a rate of pay which would allow collection of full Government subsistence allowance. As a result of this discussion, the hourly rate was fixed at 85 cents per hour. On February 14, 1946, Dixon applied to the Veterans Administration for an on-the-job training course as metal fabricator with employer, Postlewait Glass Company, claiming the full government subsistence allowance which the Act provided for a veteran trainee with dependents. Pursuant to this application Dixon was authorized by the Veterans Administration to receive a training subsistence allowance of $90 per month, payable, of course, by the Government. In order that Dixon might receive this subsistence allowance, it was necessary that the Employer make application to the Veterans Administration for approval of the training program. This was done, and the application contained the statement that the training period would require 24 months.
Witness, Henry Heiser, who immediately preceded deceased in this particular job, had no previous experience in warehousing or metal fabricating, but his starting wage was $1.00 per hour. Heiser performed this work without any instruction or supervision after he had been employed about two weeks. When deceased went to work, Heiser had been with the company for about six months. Heiser instructed and supervised deceased, Dixon, in his work for a period of about one month, after which time deceased was able, without instruction and assistance, to perform the duties of a metal man. Employer's witness, J. H. Postlewait, testified that the job required no particular skill, and that deceased, though he had only worked four months before his death, did better work than Heiser, the man he succeeded.
The wage scale in effect at Postlewait Glass Company and other glass companies in Kansas City for warehousemen at the time of Dixon's death was 90 cents an hour. When one did metal fabricating in addition to warehousing, he would ordinarily receive 10 to 15 cents per hour more than that rate.
The referee found the average weekly wage to be $34 per week, which was the amount paid directly by the Employer to deceased. He held that the Government subsistence allowance was not to be included. His award totaled $6,950. Claimants filed application with the Industrial Commission for a review of the referee's award. That body modified the referee's award to include in the compensation base the subsistence allowance of $90 per month, and awarded a total death benefit of $11,094, finding that employee-Dixon's average weekly wage was $54.77.
Employer and Insurer appealed to the Circuit Court of Jackson County. That court affirmed the ruling of the Industrial Commission and Employer and Insurer appealed to this court.
Appellants have never disputed that respondents were entitled to receive the sum of $6,950. Thus, while the total amount of the award appealed from exceeds $7,500, the amount actually in dispute is the difference between $11,094 and $6,950, and appellate jurisdiction is therefore vested in this court pursuant to sections 3 and 13, Article V, Missouri Constitution of 1945. Sleyster v. Eugene Donzelot & Son, 323 Mo. 822, 20 S.W.2d 69.
The only question presented here is the propriety of treating the subsistence payments to deceased from the Federal Government as 'gratuities' and therefore 'earnings' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Section 3710(g) of that Act, Mo.R.S.A.1939, R.S.1949, Sec. 287.250(7), provides that: 'In computing the annual earnings there shall be included in the * * * value of gratuities customarily received by consent of the employer, in the usual course of business from persons other than the employer'.
In approaching the question it is to be kept in mind that it is the settled rule that the Workmen's Compensation Law is to be liberally construed in favor of the employee. Many of our decisions hold, as stated in Dauster v. Star Mfg. Co., Mo.App., 145 S.W.2d 499, loc. cit. 503, that: 'The language used in the act and all reasonable implications therefrom shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose, and all doubts resolved in favor of the employee.'
This rule is applicable to the question of the amount of compensation to be awarded, and in the computation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enyard v. Consolidated Underwriters
...resolved in favor of the employee.' Dauster v. Star Mfg. Co. et al., Mo.App., 145 S.W.2d 499, 503; Dixon et al. v. Postlewait Glass Co., et al., 241 Mo.App. 174, 238 S.W.2d 93, 95, Section 287.800 V.A.M.S.' From the statutory provision cited it can be seen that the Legislature intended that......
-
Housman v. Lewellen
...jurisdiction. Secs. 3 and 13, Art. 5, 1945 Const.; Sleyster v. Eugene Donzelot and Son, 323 Mo. 822, 20 S.W.2d 69; Dixon v. Postlewait Glass Co., Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 93. The sole question for determination is whether Mollie Tolle took absolute title or a life estate in the personal property......
-
Glazebrook v. Hazelwood School Dist.
... ... awarded and in the computation of the question of the amount of compensation 1969, V.A.M.S.; Dixon v. Postlewait Glass Co., 241 Mo.App. 174, 238 S.W.2d 93, 95(2, 3) (1951); Baer v. City of ... ...
-
Henderson v. National Bearing Division of American Brake Shoe Co.
...has been resolved in favor of the person seeking the benefits of the act and this is in accord with Section 287.800. Dixon v. Postlewait Glass Co., Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 93; Reed v. Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co., 236 Mo.App. 402, 156 S.W.2d 747, loc. cit. 753; Howes v. Stark Bros. Nurseri......