The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1939-12-09
Charles Phillips Has
Lost Compensation
CONTINUED from Page u

The employee contracts to pro-
duce a given result subject to the
lawful orders and control Of his
employer In the means and
methods used In that employment.
He Is bound In some degree to the
duty Of service to the employer.
johnson VS.. Mortensen, ITO Conn.
22l.
There must be not alone an EN-
ploye but an employer to entitle
the former to compensation under
the terms Of the compensation
act. The act defines an employer
as follows: Employer" shall mean
any person, etc., using the serv-
Ices Of another for pay.
An employe Is one who works
for another for wages or salary,
and the right to demand pay for
all his services from his en-
ployer Is essential to his right to
receive compensation under the
Workman's Compensation Act In
case Of injury sustained by acci-
dent arising out OF and in the
course of employment. Borders VS..
Cline, 1893 s. D., 826. See also
Benson VS.. Hygienic Artificial
Ice Company, 269 N. n, 400.
To constitute one an employee
under the Compensation Act.
there must exist the relation OF
master and servant, which rela-
ton exists where o master retains
or exercises power Of control In
directing, not merely and sought
70 be accomplished, but means Of
accomplishment. Manning vs..
Texas Employers Insurance Asso-
citation (Tex. DIV. App, 81 8. w,
I'd, $50.
The word "employe" and word
employed" within Federal En-
ployers Liability Act refer TO and
were intended to describe conven-
tional relation Of master and SER
want. Wilson VS.. Nashville G. g. st.
l.. Railway, 65 8. W., I'd, e37; 10
Tenn. App. 695. The definition
OF 'employe" In Workmen's COM
pensation Act Is 10 be literally
construed. Continental Casualty
Co. VS.. Haynie, 1871 8. z. 1875.
To be an employee one must
have q superior under whose dl-
rection work involved In employ
ment Is to be done. Fitzgerald vs..
Industrial Commission, $50 N. W.,
$50. (Wis).
In the case OF Watson VS.. Gov
eminent Industrial Center, 81 b.
W. Q. c., ia, while not exactly IN
point, 1t approaches the present
claim closely. The facts appear as
follows: A training school for un-
skilled. unemployed workers was
established at Birmingham. Eng
land, under the direction Of an
officer OF the Minister Of Labor.
The workers entered voluntarily
on a six months course OF instruc-
ton and were known as trainees.
They we're TO work O specified
number OF hours, were subject TO
strict discipline and could be dis
missed for q sufficient reason.
They were entitled TO draw their
weekly unemployment benefit and
were, In addition, paid O weekly
personal allowance and travelling
expenses and were given O mid.
day meal. There was no attempt
made TO run the schocol on strict
ly economic lines, but useful and
salable articles were produced. An
unemployed youth entered the
school as O trainee under these
conditions, and received every
week eighteen shillings uncmploy-
ment benefit, two shillings and six
pence personal allowance, and
three shillings travelling expens-
es. The total sum OF one pound,
three shillings and six pence was
paid TO him each Friday. While
engaged In said work he sustained
an injury and sought compensa-
ton under the British Workmen's
Compensation Act. The County
Judge awarded compensation but
he was reversed by the Court Of
Appeal. Lord Hanworth delivered
the opinion OF the Court. part Of
which Is as follows: I'm fact. at
the moment when this man Wat.
son was injured he was employed
on a piece OF work which ulu'
mately would be paid for by some
body who wanted 1t. II Is then
said: inasmuch as the fruits Of
his labor had an economic value
II Is shown that he must have
been engaged In an employment.
Then reference Is made to thu
regular hours, the regular habits.
and the control and discipline ex-
ercised at the institution. But
there are educational institutions
where equally there are regular
habits, regular hours, and control
discipline, so that those items ap.
pear TO be entirely equivocal and
not to give any indication either
one way or the other. It certainly
cannot be said to detract from an
institution being one that Is edu-
cational that there Is a system Of
discipline or regularity Of days
and hours OF employment and
habits insisted upon"
All OF the other Judges on the
Court Of Appeal concurred In the
opinion OF Judge Hanworth.
JAMES M. LYNCH,
uTnrkynanie HnYnY,ansa kion Tom.