1

sylvania were looking upon the advent of a new law, with perhaps some misgivings from every possible human angle. Two hundred thousand employers were anxiously awaiting the announcement of the policy of the administrative board in order to determine whether it would be constructive and helpful or harmful and confiscatory. Two milllon employes were critically awaiting developments to determine whether or not it were possible that at last the influence of the employer had joined with the cry of humanity and had placed upon our statute books a legislative program that would really help the injured and carry mercy to the widows and children of the killed.

We have closed the year without a word of criticism from over eight hundred newspapers of the State. The patriotic editors and publishers of this Commonwealth have devoted much space in their news columns and have contributed many intelligent and helpful suggestions in their editorials.

The many insurance companies that have assumed the . greater portion of these obligations have ended the year in peace with one another and in general prosperity; whereas in other States they have often been at each other's throats and in constant battle and strife with the method of insurance adopted by the State herself. The business has been dispatched with promptness and satisfaction, and has thus far excelled the history of any other legislation of any kind in any State of the Union. Why has all this been so? First and foremost, because the law was well conceived and scientifically constructed. It is equally balanced between its benefits and its obligations. Its money payments are not sufficiently large to encourage the malingerer, nor, on the other hand, to place a prohibitive burden upon the employer. We have borne in mind that the real medium of the success of this thought, and its thorough establishment as the law of the land, has depended upon the well considered treatment of the employer who must assume the obligation of the money payments in the first instance.

Too often has it happened that the enforcement of a law has been placed in the hands of men who believe that the business man is the legitimate prey of bureaucrats. The business man to

day is overburdened with laws of regulation and annoying inspection. Too often the administration of these laws is placed in the hands of men who regard the accumulation of wealth or great business enterprises as evidence of unlawful accumulation, and he then becomes a special agent of annoyance. He takes himself so seriously that he believes that he can establish social justice by unreasonable regulation.

I find that our employers are thinking in advance of the period. Our greatest corporations of the State are dealing with their employes more liberally than the law demands. Complaints of discrimination against crippled or physically weak employes have come to our Board for investigation, and nine-tenths of the complaints were without the slightest foundation. We are daily in receipt of requests from employers asking us to assist them to induce employes to receive proper medical or surgical treatment in order to guarantee their future activity.

I attribute this co-operation on the part of the employers of the State to the fact that our Board has thoroughly established the fact that we will not allow this law, in our administration, to become revolutionary, so that there will be no taking of property without due process of law. It is not an insurance scheme by which every injured man is entitled to recover something except as established by the usual and well-known rules of evidence. The usual presumptions known to the law must never be disregarded nor reversed in the administration of a workmen's compensation law.

Law is a most jealous mistress, and she will not allow any unbalanced, misconceived nor unscientific legislation to long survive. A workmen's compensation law must be based upon fundamentals and must be administered as all law has been administered from time immemorial.

In insisting upon this method of procedure we have been staunch and true friends of the legislation and most effective champions of the man who works, for to apply any other method of administration would be but to destroy the whole scheme in a very short time, and cause it to crumble because of popular distrust.

DATES OF MEETING.

At Johnstown, February 8th; at Philadelphia, February 15th and 16th, and at Pittsburgh, February 20th and 21st.

AWARDS OF REFEREES.

S. J. YERGER vs. STATE WORKMEN'S INSURANCE

FUND.

Accident in the course of employment-Casual employment. Referee: W. W. Champion, District No. 5. Hearing at Williamsport, Pa., December 8, 1916. Claim Petition No. 1508.

Facts.

On October 20, 1916, the claimant was employed by the defendant in painting the roof of the latter's dwelling house. On that day he fell from the roof breaking both wrists and several ribs.

The defendant is a veterinarian with an office at his stables which are at the rear end of the lot on which his dwelling house stands. The claimant has been frequently employed by the defendant as an extra man in and about his business as stable man, driver, etc. and at other times upon repair jobs in and about his property. On the day of the accident he was employed to do some carpenter work in and about the house and was directed to repair the tin roof on the front porch of defendant's dwelling.

The only question involved is whether or not the work in which the employe was engaged was casual employment. The claimant showed that the defendant at times received patrons at his home and gave professional advice, but on the other hand his office where all of his drugs and instruments were kept was separate from the dwelling

Discussion.

The fact that a professional man from force of circumstances does at times perform some professional work at his home, does not render the repairs which are made upon his dwelling a part of his regular business. The ordinary small repairs made to buildings and tenements of a professional man or a householder are in fact casual employment. The employment in question in the present case is entirely different from that involved in the case of Marsh vs. Groner, 2 Dep. Rep. page 1805.

Conclusion and Disallowance.

Inasmuch as the claimant's employment was casual in character and not in the course of defendant's regular business, the claimant is not entitled to compensation.

HARRY M. McVEY vs. AETNA EXPLOSIVES COMPANY.

Wages-Computation of--"Bonus" paid to employe under contract of hiring.

Referee: Jacob Snyder, District No. 6. Hearings at Mount Union, Pa., January 10 and 17, 1917. Petition for modification of compensation agreement 36586.

The facts concerning the matter disputed are set forth in the following

Discussion of the Question Involved.

"In this case, the principal question for determination is whether or not the wages paid by the defendant known as 'bonus wages' can be included in reaching a weekly wage upon which a compensation agreement or award can be based. These wages are paid on the second pay of each month with the regular pay, and are on a percentage basis. The uncontradicted testimony shows that the claimant entered into a compensation agreement with the defendant company some time following the accident on

a weekly wage of $16.83, the weekly wage less the additional wage paid on the 25th of each month known as the 'bonus wage.' The claimant received for his services while working for the defendant 32c per hour, with the provision that should he continue to work and not be discharged, he would receive 50% additional wages, making his total pay 48c per hour. Regularly on the 25th

of each month the claimant received the additional wages of 50%, the conditions of punctual and continual service under which these wages were to be received having been met by the employe.

"Inasmuch as the claimant received at all times this additional wage and was entitled to it for his services rendered the company, and not being given or received as a gratuity, it would seem that the only conclusion your Referee can reach from this testimony, is that these wages known as the 'bonus wage' should be included in computing compensation.

"The testimony shows that the claimant worked continually eight hours a day, every day in the week. In accordance with the ruling of the Workmen's Compensation Board by Commissioner Scott. In re: Dominick Spadea versus John Goll & Company, 2 Dep. Rep. 2299, a case practically 'on all fours' with the case at bar, the wages to be used as a basis in determining the amount of compensation shall be the total wages for the week preceding the accident, the employment being continuous and substantially constant and regular."

Conclusion and Award.

The claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation based upon his regular wages, plus the 'bonus' allowed under the contract of employment.

APPEALS FROM AWARDS OF REFEREES.

PAUL FRANZEK vs. FORTY FORT COAL CO.

Hearing de novc-Nature of-When allowed.

Where after hearing before a Referee the facts of a case remain somewhat in doubt and one party has filed notice of afterdiscovered evidence, a hearing de novo will be granted.