this additionalcontributionmade by the employer,said contribution would probably be wages. If the contributionis for the purpose of supplyingthe money to meet the expensesof the actualadministration of the trust fund, said contri- butionwould not be wages.
Under the plan in questio!i, we are of the opinionthat the earnings of the trust fund, such a8 interestand profitson investmentsand dividends receivedfrom the insurancecompar;iea, are not wages within the meaningof the Act and are not taxableas such. We find nothing in the Regulationspromulgatedby the Commission which are contraryto our conclusionabove stated,
The Accidentand Sick BenefitPlan works as follows:
Employeesabsent from work because of illnessor accidentwill be allowedtheir full normal salary or wages for the number of weeks'specified below:
Upon completionof Full salarywill be serviceof allowedfor 1 year 1 week 2 years 2 weeks 3 years 3 weeks 4 years 4 tieeks 5 years 5.weeks HonorableOrvilleS. Carpenter,Page 5 (o-2248)
Upon completionof Pull salarywill be serviceof allowedfor' 6 year? 6 weeks 7 years 7 weeks 8 years ~9weeks 9 years 11 weeks 10 or more years 13 weeks
It appearsto us that the paymentsunder consideration are made as a result of the personalservicesrenderedto the employerby the individual receivingthem. The above benefitsare determinedend made in accordancewith a.fixed policy of the employer. An employerwould not pay these benefitsto one who had not renderedsome serviceto him. We concludethat accidentand sick benefits,as describedabove, are wages withinthe meaning of Section (0) of Article 5221b-17end contributionsare due thereon.
We find,nothingin the Regulationsof the Commissionwhich are con- triry to the above holding.
Your letter statesthat the employer'extends furtheraccidentend sick benefitsto the employeesIn certainmeritoriouscases. As to these particularbenefits,they may or may not be wages.according to the particular facts of each case. Should the employerpay anemployee an additionalsum of money due to the need of the employeeand said sum haa no relationto the durationof employmentor to the salaryof the employee,It would.seemthat such benefitswould not be wages'forthe performanceof personalservicesbut would be.an outrightgift f&m the employerto thenemployee . As to these specialbenefits,if they are not'wageswithinthe meen- ing of Section (0) of Art. 5221b-17,'then 36 of the Commission Regulation.No., would be inapplicableas to these nartirularbenefits..
Under the facts set out in your letter it seems that it IS the CUS- tom for'theemployerto pay every employeecertaindi-amissal wages.upontermi- natlon of.emp+yment. It appearsthat the amount of di@issal wages paid to a particularemployeedepends~uponhis length of employmentand the salary or wages that he had received. The employee,.nodoubt, contemplatesreceiving these benefitsai remunerationfor the personalservicethat he has rendered his employer. Certainly,no employerwould pay such'moneyto one who had not rendered.someeervice'tohim.
We might say,thatthe Texas Law contain&no exemptionof payments of dismissalwages exemptingthen from the inclusivedefinitionof wages. We conclude,therefore,that the dlsmisealwages are ,wageswithin the mesning of the Texas UnemploymentCompensation Act and contributions are due thereon, : It might be said thatSection 3 of Regulation38, supra, is in con- flict wit&what we have heretoforesaid in'this opinion..Sai.dsectionreads ~88.followb: HonorableOrvilleS. Carpenter,Page 6 (o-2248)
"Ordinarily,facilitiesor privilege6furniehedby an em- ployer to individualsin his employ are not deemedto be wages if such facilitiesor privilegesare offeredor furnishedby the employermerely as a convenienceto the employeror as