Ostatnik v. Hamilton, B--86682
| Decision Date | 28 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. B--86682,B--86682 |
| Parties | Anna OSTATNIK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Vera O. HAMILTON, t/a The Mansard Inn, Respondent-Appellant. Claim Petition . New Jersey |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
Harry F. Fass, Plainfield, for petitioner-appellee (Louis Lebowitz, Elizabeth, appearing).
Skeffington, Haskins & Skeffington, Bloomfield, for respondent-appellant (Donald J. Skeffington, Bloomfield, appearing).
McGRATH, J.C.C.
Petitioner had an award which is not disputed medically or as to the accident, but is disputed as to the amount which was allowed as compensation, and it is claimed by the respondent-appellant that the deputy director erred in applying the statute to the facts.
Petitioner was employed as a dishwasher at the rate of $1 an hour in a restaurant owned by the respondent-appellant. She worked irregularly and the hours from day to day varied and from week to week varied according to need. Her work varied from 4 1/2 hours one day for five days, and on another occasion six hours, and on another four hours, and on another seven hours, and on three days she worked eight hours. At no time did she work a greater proportion of the week than five days a week. The deputy director found that he would have to apply the minimum number of working days a week, which is five days under the statute, and this is disputed.
The dispute here turns on the meaning of the words used in R.S. 34:15--37, N.J.S.A., which provides that where the rate of wages is fixed by the hour, the daily wage shall be found by multiplying the hourly rate by the customary number of working hours constituting an ordinary day in the character of work involved, etc. Five days is constituted a minimum week. In this case, unlike the case of Langheld v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 25 N.J.Misc. 159, 51 A.2d 533, (Cty.Ct.1947), the rate of hours was not fixed at certain hours. In this case there was no fixed number of hours, so that the customary number of working hours was anywhere from four to eight hours, and there was no ordinary day since the hours varied from day to day.
In the case of Mahoney v. Nitroform Co. Inc., 20 N.J. 499, 120 A.2d 454, 459 (1956), the court said:
The question here is whether 'ordinary day' as applied to this case means an ordinary day worked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Triano v. Carbon Steel Products Corp.
...day followed by the employer in the line or type of work in which the particular employee is engaged. Cf. Ostatnik v. Hamilton, 43 N.J.Super. 469, 129 A.2d 61 (Cty.Ct.1957). Conversely, in our opinion the reference is not to the number of hours in a day the employee is called upon to work u......
-
Engelbretson v. American Stores
...day followed by the employer in the line or type of work in which the particular employee is engaged,' citing Ostatnik v. Hamilton, 43 N.J.Super. 469, 129 A.2d 61 (Cty.Ct.1957), and '(c)onversely, in our opinion the reference is not to the number of hours in a day the employee is called upo......
-
Engelbretson v. American Stores
...day followed by the employer in the line or type of work in which the particular employee is engaged. Cf. Ostatnik v. Hamilton, 43 N.J.Super. 469, 129 A.2d 61 (Cty.Ct. 1957). Conversely, in our opinion the reference is not to the number of hours in a day the employee is called upon to work ......