Whenever used in sections 31-71a to 31-71i, inclusive:

(1) “Employer” includes any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, the administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased person, the conservator of the estate of an incompetent, or the receiver, trustee, successor or assignee of any of the same, employing any person, including the state and any political subdivision thereof;

(2) “Employee” includes any person suffered or permitted to work by an employer;

(3) “Wages” means compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, whether the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, commission or other basis of calculation;

(4) “Commissioner” means the Labor Commissioner.

(1967, P.A. 714, S. 1; P.A. 87-366, S. 2.)

History: P.A. 87-366 amended Subdiv. (1) to include the state and its political subdivisions within “employer” definition.

Cited. 209 C. 818; 212 C. 294; 219 C. 217; 228 C. 106; 231 C. 690. Bonuses awarded solely on discretionary basis and not solely due to ascertainable efforts of the particular employee are not wages under section; managers' bonuses tied to subjective factors such as diversity and profitability, which factors are not entirely predictable or within control of specific employee, are not wages under section. 289 C. 769. Definitions in section apply to Sec. 31-72. 293 C. 515. “Wages” does not include bonus when amount of bonus is indeterminate and discretionary. 296 C. 579. A bonus, which is nondiscretionary and narrowly tailored to success of the corporate division over which plaintiff had direct supervisory authority, is a wage as defined in Subdiv. (3). 298 C. 145.

Cited. 8 CA 254; 16 CA 232; Id., 437; 18 CA 451; 27 CA 800; 37 CA 379. Under employment contract, employee's bonus could have been classified as wages for purposes of Subdiv. (3). 111 CA 287; judgment reversed in part, see 296 C. 579. Subdiv. (2): Liquor Control Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that those who worked at cafe were “employees” because they worked at the will and interest of the cafe, had regular schedules and received compensation, and there is no legal support for claim that they are family members and cannot be considered “employees”. 120 CA 92.

Cited. 40 CS 246.