calling penalty wages “penal in character”
How later courts described this case
- calling penalty wages “penal in character”
- Rule 17(a) “was enacted for the benefit of a party defendant, to protect him from being again harassed for the same cause.”
- purpose of ORS 652.150, providing penalty for failing timely to pay “wages” is punitive, not compensatory
- under ORS 652.150, “the additional liability is only for a wilful wrong”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Warner, C. J.,
dissenting.
Although I appreciate that the question is a close one, I believe a contract of employment of the kind described in the majority opinion establishes as a matter of law the status of employer and independent contractor. Some of the proponents for the contrary thought, as expressed by the majority opinion, have urged that the relationship of employer and independent contractor would have deprived Nordling and his coworkers, and others similarly situated, of the privileges accorded by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Such a conclusion is, of course, in error. OES 656.128.
*338 Barzee, Leedy, Keane £ Erwin, Portland, for the motion.
Bailey, Lezak and Swink, Portland. On the brief were Peterson and Pozzi, Portland.