CHART 6. WAGE COMPLAINTS AND OTHER COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 1923-1924 TABLE 4-Number and Per Cent of Wage Complaints and of Other Complaints Against Violations of Labor Laws Filed With, and Investigated by, the Bureau from 1913-1926, by Years. *Includes child labor law violations, eight hour violations, misrepresentation by employment agencies etc. COMPLAINTS AGAINST PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES. The subject of fees charged by private employment agencies as well as matters pertaining to the regulation of these agencies by the Bureau are described in a subsequent section of this report. In Tables 5 and 6, and in Chart 7, following, are shown in detail the number of complaints against private employment agencies which the several district offices of the Bureau investigated and adjusted each fiscal year from 1913 to 1926, inclusive. The complaints referred to in these tables include all complaints involving alleged violations of the private employment agency act, such as operating without licenses, refusal to make refunds as required by law, failure properly to describe the jobs to which applicants are sent, and operating employment agencies under our trade school act. It will be seen by examining Tables 5 and 6 that the number of complaints in 1925 slightly exceeded those in 1924; while the number of complaints involving the private employment agency act in 1926 exceeded the number in 1925 by 70, or 7.2 per cent. A perusal of the tables and chart relating to complaints against employment agencies shows that there is no regularity in the number of complaints handled each year. This is explained by the fact that the enforcement of labor laws, like the enforcement of most laws, is often accomplished by "drives" and "campaigns." Thus, during the fiscal year 1926, the Bureau made a special attempt, or "drive" to apprehend violators of the trade school act under which trade schools promising employment to enrolling students are considered employment agencies and must secure employment agency licenses from the Labor Commissioner. TABLE 5-Number of Complaints Against Violations of the Private Employment Agency Act Received and Investigated by the Bureau from 1913 to 1926, by Years. *Includes also complaints against persons for operating employment agencies without licenses, not included in similar tables in previous reports; includes also complaints against persons operating employment agencies without licenses under our trade school act. TABLE 6-Number of Complaints Against Violations of the Private Employment Agency Act, Received and Investigated by the Bureau from 1913-1926 by Biennial Fiscal Periods. *Includes also complaints against persons for operating employment agenices without licenses, not included in similar tables in previous reports; includes also complaints against persons operating employment agencies without licenses under our trade school act. Misrepresentations of Working Conditions by Employment Agencies and Revocation of Licenses. Flagrant violations of the provisions of the private employment agency act result in revocation of licenses of the offending employment agents. Licenses, however, are not revoked before the employment agent against whom the complaint is filed is given due notice of the complaint filed against him and is given ample opportunity to defend himself at a hearing before the Labor Commissioner, or his deputies. In many cases, after such hearings, the employment agent is ordered. to pay all the damages that accrued to the applicants for employment who filed the charges and he is allowed to hold his license subject to his. strict compliance with the employment agency act. The following case is cited as an example of the kinds of complaints which come before the Bureau for adjudication. It is the case of A. P. Lopez vs. Ricardo Rodriguez, Los Angeles Complaint No. 52,225. This complaint was filed in our Los Angeles district office on October 30, 1925, and is described in the following record taken from our files in Los Angeles: The defendant, R. Rodriguez, operates an employment agency at 426 N. Main St., Los Angeles. On September 28, 1925, A. P: Lopez, R. Moreno and three other Mexican laborers were sent by the agency to work at the Natural Soda Products Company near Keeler, California, a distance of about 275 miles from Los Angeles. Lopez and Moreno appeared at our bureau on October 30th and complained that conditions at the plant were misrepresented to them by the employment agency. The hearing upon the complaint was set for November 4, 1925. The defendant appeared personally and was represented by the firm of Fredericks & Hanna, Senator Charles Lyon and A. W. Marshall. The State Commission of Immigration and Housing, which also took an interest in this case, was represented by Mrs. Adele S. Calhoun. The office of the Mexican Consu! was also represented. Several employment agencies who became interested or involved in the proceedings were represented by Mr. Raymond Shively, manager of the California Employment Board. Mr. Philip Playter represented Hummel Brothers, and Henry Watson represented the International Labor Agency. At the hearing were present about thirty Mexican laborers who claimed to have had similar experiences as the complainants in this case. Several officials from the Keeler plant and the district attorney of Inyo County were also present at the hearings. The Natural Soda Products Company maintains a plant near Keeler, Inyo County, California, where soda is extracted from the bottom of a dried up lake, is carted away from the lake in small cars, and after certain preparations is shipped to various points throughout the country. The surface of the lake is covered with a |