In P-B-422, the Board also affirmed the Department’s policy of allocating residual payments to the week in which they are mailed or delivered to the claimant or to his/her designated agent. In P-B-422, the Appeals Board confirmed long-standing Department and board policy by holding that residual payments were wages for unemployment insurance purposes since they are remuneration for personal services. (Note: The payments made to some musicians from the Phonograph Manufacturers Special Payment Fund are a form of residual payments.) Other common terms for these payments are use, reuse, and rerun pay.

The categories of workers who receive such payments include, but are not limited to, actors, actresses, singers, dancers, musicians, directors, and writers. These payments are additional compensation paid to an individual for the replay or resale of recorded materials (such as theatrical films, phonograph records, radio broadcasts, television programs and commercials, video cassettes, etc.) with respect to which the individual previously performed services. Various categories of workers in the entertainment industry and related fields receive special payments commonly referred to as residual payments or fees. Any obligation which the claimant had with respect to this payment was to his employer.' C. Therefore, the claimant was not required to account for this money which he received and retained when he reported to the department. Not being ’payable for personal services’ rendered by the claimant, this duplicate payment was not ’wages’ as defined above. The subsequent payment received by the claimant was made by the employer entirely under the mistaken belief that the claimant had not been paid for services rendered. Accordingly, the claimant correctly reported his earnings with respect to the week ending Apwhen he next certified for benefits. There remained no amount owing, no obligation on the part of the employer to make additional payment, and no right or expectation on the part of the claimant to receive any additional amount. In the instant case, all amounts owed by the employer were paid at the conclusion of the one day involved. This implies an obligation on the part of the employer to make payment with a corresponding right on the part of the worker to receive such payment. 'Wages as defined above are essentially remuneration payable for personal services. Several weeks later, the claimant received a check in the mail from the employer in payment for the services rendered for that same day. The claimant was paid in cash by the employer. The claimant worked one day during the week ending April 24. The Board considered this in Benefit Decision 6390.

Since this second payment is not for personal service, it is not reportable wages under the Unemployment Insurance Code. It may happen that a claimant is paid twice for the same period of work. (For a complete discussion of backpay awards, see TPU 80.05.) B. for which they received benefits, to the extent of the applicable backpay received during such weeks. Therefore, we conclude that the claimants were ineligible during the weeks. In our opinion, such wages were properly and reasonably allocable to the weeks that the claimants would have worked except for their discharge. 'In the instant case, an award of backpay was made to the claimants covering periods of time from the date of their discharge to August 31, 1949.

Residual claimant