Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LORETTA LENKIEWICZ v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/14/78)

decided: December 14, 1978.

LORETTA LENKIEWICZ, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD AND THE PITTSBURGH PRESS CLUB, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Loretta Lenkiewicz v. The Pittsburgh Press Club, No. A-70796.

COUNSEL

Ronald A. Berlin, for petitioner.

Elmer G. Klaber, for respondents.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, DiSalle and Craig. Judges Blatt and MacPhail did not participate. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 242]

Before us is the question of what constitutes a "gratuity" for the purpose of computing workmen's compensation benefits.

In 1971, while working as a waitress for The Pittsburgh Press Club (Employer/Respondent), Loretta Lenkiewicz (Petitioner) was seriously injured and rendered totally disabled. A compensation agreement was voluntarily executed providing Petitioner with weekly compensation based on her average weekly wage plus a two dollar daily gratuity allowance.*fn1 Petitioner alleging that her average weekly wage was understated, petitioned for a modification of the agreement. The referee and the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) denied the petition. We reverse and remand.

In the course of her duties, Petitioner served meals at banquets catered by Employer. Her compensation consisted of a base wage plus a 15 percent per meal assessment levied, collected and paid over by Employer. Petitioner contends that this assessment should be included in the computation of her average weekly wage and argues that payment of the assessment by individual

[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 243]

    diners was not gratuitous because it was required regardless of the patron's satisfaction with the service rendered. It is also argued that the gratuitous nature of the assessment was nullified by Employer's guarantee of its payment in the original contract of hire.

Respondent answers by arguing that the levy and collection of the gratuity assessment by the employer does not change the gratuitous nature of the payment and, therefore, the assessment should not be included in the computation of the average weekly wage. We disagree.

The legislature did not deem it necessary to provide us with a definition of the word "gratuity" and in the absence of such, we must apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the word. See Commonwealth v. DeWan, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 203, 124 A.2d 139 (1956). In the absence of ambiguity, we have no occasion to be concerned with legislative intent. It is an established rule of statutory construction that when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. See Daugherty v. Continental Can Co., 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 342, 313 A.2d 276 (1973).

"Gratuity" is defined as something acquired without bargain or inducement; something given freely or without recompense; a gift; something voluntarily given in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.