to all of this protection not merely while they are at work, but also while they are coming to or going from their work over the employer's premises. Where a railroad company runs its trains over tracks belonging to another company, and an employee is injured in an accident due to defects in the track, the company is nevertheless liable to the employee. It is as much its business to inspect and see that the tracks over which it requires its employees to pass are in good condition, as it is for it to inspect cars which it receives from another company to see that they are in good condition before allowing the employees to handle them.

If an employee of the company which owned the tracks were injured by any carelessness in running a train of the renting company, however, the company that owned the train and not his own company would be liable to him for his injuries. His own company could have no control over the other company's trains, while the renting company would have control over the tracks it had rented.

Special Contracts. It is not safe for an employer to rely on special contracts relieving him from liability. They are generally contrary to some special statute, such as the Workmen's Compensation Act, for instance, or else will be held contrary to public policy.

Notes:

1. The careful employer makes use of all the safeguards possible for his employees, not merely as

a matter of humanity, but as the cheapest policy in the end.

2. The theory of the law in the matter of safeguards is excellent. The practice in many cases is bad. The workman is not usually able to enforce the law against his employer and loses his job if he tries.

§ 272. Presumption with Regard to Joint Owners

When a party is hired to work in an enterprise in which two or more parties are jointly interested, the presumption is that he is the employee of both, and may hold either or both liable for the duties owed to him by an employer.

In one case, an employee was hired by Rumsey, one of the joint owners, to work on a steamboat, and received all his instructions from him. McMahon, the other joint owner, never came on the boat nor had any relations with the employee. But the court held him liable for damages for injuries to the employee."

§ 273. Wages

Wages are the compensation which the employee receives for his services. He may be paid in the form of a salary, or a fixed wage, or "by the piece"; that is, the employee may be paid a certain fixed amount per dozen, etc., for the work he turns out. He may be paid in the form of commissions, i.e., a per cent of the price of goods sold, or of the amount of an insurance policy, etc. The amount of wages is determined by the agreement.

Where the wages, or part of the wages, consist of net profits, the amount of the employee's salary must not be deducted from the gross profits in computing them. Nor may interest on temporary loans be deducted. The employer cannot take out for himself interest on his investment, before computing the net profits."

Wages must be distinguished from a bonus. A bonus is really a gift made by the employer to the employee. He may give it in the form of a reward for good work or may divide a certain percentage of the profits among the employees at Christmas; but in either case it is merely a gift and not

• McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. 357.

Morrow v. Murphy, 120 Mich. 204; 79 N. W. 193; 80 N. W. 255.

anything which the employee has earned under his contract of employment. If the bonus was specified in the contract of employment, so that when earned the employee could bring suit for it, it would be a misnomer to call it a bonus. It would be earned compensation.

The employee is entitled to the wages which he has already earned even though his employer discharges him for good cause, unless he was guilty of bad faith and attempted to injure his employer's business or use physical violence against his employer. A superintendent who had attempted to sell blooded cattle belonging to his employer for less than they were worth was refused the right to recover unpaid wages.'

Some states provide by law that wages must be paid in cash and make it a criminal offense to attempt to pay in orders on the company's store or merchandise. But even under such laws, the custom of issuing time checks which are redeemable in money, where the pay-days are put at reasonable intervals and not made purposely inconvenient to force the laborers to accept time checks, is permissible.

Distinction Between Wages and Salaries. These laws are generally made for the benefit of laborers and do not apply to clerical workers who draw salaries as distinguished from wages. In the same way, the wage-earners, but not the salaryearners, are given in most states the right to collect their wages through enforcing a lien on the employer's property.

The distinction is made in regard to manual labor as opposed to any other sort. Typesetters and printers come under the head of manual labor; bookkeepers and proofreaders do

not.

Overtime. The law regulating the hours of labor gives the employer no right to overtime on the part of the workman unless it expressly says so. Generally, it is absolutely for

Von Heyne v. Tomkins, 89 Minn. 77; 93 N. W. 901; 5 L. R. A. N. S. 524.

bidden to allow employees on public works to work more than the time specified, i.e., eight hours a day in New York, and private employees may refuse to work for a longer time. If employees work overtime without an express agreement for additional wages, they are not entitled to them, and if the employer permits them to work less than the specified number of hours in any day, he is not entitled to require them to make

it up.

Where a contract of employment expires and the employee continues to work without any new contract, if he is performing the same kind of services as before, he will be entitled to the same wages.

Notes:

I.

1. The agreement for wages should not be left indefinite as to hours, overtime, etc.

2.

The disadvantage of the single laborer in any dispute with his employer has caused the development of the labor union and much labor legislation. 3. A minor has usually no right to his own wages, consequently an employer should not pay them to him without his father's consent, or he may find himself under an obligation to the father. The wages should be paid to the father, or his written consent to their payment to the minor obtained. In New York the statute requires the father to give notice if he claims wages.

$274. Fines, Deductions, etc.

Fines can be imposed only for offenses in the course of the work. In the case of Cross v. Detroit Baseball Club,8 Cross was fined $75 for using bad language in an argument

884 Mo. App. 526.

with the manager at a distance from the grounds. The court refused to allow the club to collect the fine.

Deductions of wages for leaving without giving notice must be reasonable in amount. The courts have held that indefinite deductions of all wages then due are unjust, because they give the employer a chance to take advantage of his employees by withholding their wages for long periods of time.

Fines for offenses must be agreed to by the employee. They should be mentioned in the agreement of employment, or posted in the rules in a conspicuous place; and the employee's attention must be called to them so emphatically that he cannot say that he was ignorant of what they were. Merely posting up rules without calling them to the employee's attention is insufficient.

Notes:

I.

In making an agreement that wages may be deducted if the employee leaves without giving notice, the exact amount to be deducted should always be stated. It should be a reasonable amount, as otherwise the courts may hold the agreement unfair and refuse to enforce it.

2. Where fines are to be imposed, it is best to have a printed copy of the rules imposing them made a part of the contract of employment, or given to the employees with an announcement that these are rules for fines which they should read carefully. If any of the employees are illiterate, the rules should be explained.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What degree of skill must an employee have?

I.

2. Has an employer any rights in regard to the spare time of the

employee?