Court Opinion

ID: 9764016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:07:26.897318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:52.470673
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Colins:
The majority points out that the term “wages” is not defined within Section 309 of The Pennsylvania Work*492mens Compensation Act.1 The majority then concludes that we must interpret the contract and “determine whether the parties intended to include the signing bonus in the calculation of the average weekly wage.”
The contract clearly evidences the parties’ intent to set the signing bonus apart from the salary paid to Mc-Glasson. It is equally clear that the intention to do so is for purposes of renewal of the contract in future years. Stated in another way, the Eagles sought to prevent McGlasson from claiming the signing bonus as part of his “base wages” and thereby increasing his next year’s contract wages. The contract does not and arguably could not define base wages for purposes of computing average weekly wage to calculate workmen’s compensation benefits.
The Eagles had a contractual obligation to pay the signing bonus to McGlasson. The 1983-84 contract created an absolute right to receipt of the signing bonus so long as McGlasson signed with the team, passed the physical exam, and reported to and remained in training camp. An addendum to that contract provided that in the event McGlasson failed or refused to report to the team to practice or play with the team, or left the team without the Eagles’ consent, then he was to forfeit the proportionate amount of the total bonus not having been earned at the time of the default. Once these contingencies were met, a legally enforceable contract right to payment was created which rendered that payment part of the wage computation. Widmer v. Widmer, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 264, 106 A.2d 875 (1954); Specker v. Sun Ray Drug Co., 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 39, 60 A.2d 400 (1948). The majority attempts to distinguish the signing bonus as an “independent contractual obligation.” I disagree with the majority’s characterization of the bonus as such. This Court *493held in Lenkiewicz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 241, 395 A.2d 307 (1978), that a contractual obligation is not a “gratuity” and should be included in the computation of average weekly wage.
The pronouncement the majority is making is that an employer can contractually define what wages are for. purposes of computing workmens compensation benefits. This is a dangerous precedent. I would reverse that portion of the order of the Board which disallowed inclusion of the signing bonus in the computation of average weekly wage and reinstate the decision of the referee.
Judge DOYLE joins in this Dissenting Opinion.

 Act of June 2, 1915, EL. 736, as amended, 77 ES. §582.