Imágenes de páginas

Mr. OTERO. In answer to Director Tibbs of Pennsylvania: I think one way to pose the problem back for consideration would be if you had identical complaints of $500, I think it would make a difference as to how long a period of time it took to earn $500 or, say, $1,000. Everybody can say that $500 seems to be the limit. But maybe one person earned $1,000 in 3 or 4 weeks; but another person would come in with a $1,000 claim that perhaps took 5 or 6 months to earn. So I think you should take this into consideration. Put a limit in your State and then you are bound by it. I do not see how you can make exceptions.

Commissioner BACHMAN. I would like to get some comment in regard to burden of proof. When this wage claim reaches the point of litigation in the court, who has the burden of proof-the claimant or the employer?

Deputy Commissioner LEFKOWITZ. That depends upon the procedure used. In New York State, the normal procedure in an informal hearing in which the requirements of due process are not satisfied, we on behalf of the employee would have the burden of proving the violation. On the other hand, where we hold a formal hearing and issue a formal order, we would have to prove only that we have issued an order, and the order did follow due process, and that the law had not been complied with. The burden would then be on the defendant to prove or challenge the order. But the normal processes would be upon the defendant.

Director AJER. In answer to Commissioner Bachman's question, I might mention how we handle it in Wisconsin. So we tell the claimant that he should submit his claim to us. Our law says that the commissioner may take action on any claim which, in his opinion, is a valid claim. If it appears to be a valid claim, then we start helping him substantiate it, if necessary. I might comment, too, that we are limited to $200 on our wage collection. Probably at the time it was adopted, it was a fair wage, but today it is quite small.

President CATHERWOOD. Are there any other questions or observations?

Commissioner Boggs. Actually, we do not have a board to appeal to. If an employee makes a complaint to us, we ask him to submit it in writing. That authorizes us to make an agreement. In each case the employer is required to have an established payroll. If he has not established a payroll, then he is in violation of the law. But we do not have any hearings. If he does not pay up, we issue a warrant, and he goes to court.

Commissioner BACHMAN. In connection with that, when you have an employee who works for a small employer with only four or five employees. The employer keeps a regular employee record, but he calls up Joe and says, “Joe, would you come back to work for a couple of hours?" No record is made. This goes on for 3 or 4 days. When payday comes he is not paid for it, the employer says,

256-592 0467—13

No, he did not work.” The employee says, “I did work.” Where is the proof on that?

Commissioner Boggs. We have never had that problem.

President CATHERWOOD. You explore it to try to ascertain which position is correct.

CONFEREE. We try to get corroborative evidence that he worked there. I would send an investigator to this particular place to get the names of employees who were at work, and ask for the payroll records of employees that were at work. You need no further corroborative evidence. The investigator has observed them during some particular time at work and the record was not produced. There is your evidence.

Commissioner BACHMAN. How about social security records?
CONFEREE. Same thing.
President CATHERWOOD. We have time for one more question.

Commissioner CRANE. Could I ask a question out of order on the subject of safety? We have some problems in connection with some amusement parks—all of these shopping centers and recreational areas are putting up amusement devices. We are trying to extend safety standards into that area. It is very hazardous. I wonder if any of the commissioners have developed any safety standards in that area

President CATHERWOOD. Refernce has been made to material you received from Carl Mattei in New York. You would like to hear from other States pertaining to the amusement devices at shopping centers and elsewhere, something by way of rules, standards, and approaches that they have used.

In New York, it is really more for the protection of patrons than it is for employees. This is one area where jurisdiction of the labor department is by way of extension from employees to the public.

Director AJER. In that field, the Wisconsin law reads: "Employees or frequenters thereof." So we went to the attorney general and he interpreted frequenters as being the public to the amusement rides, also the employees working on the equipment. And to back that up, because we still did not know whether the State legislature would support this thinking, we went to the joint finance committee and received some money to make a study. We feel that we have jurisdiction in this field so we have proceeded along those lines. We have not been contested.

President CATHERWOOD. Do you have material in this field that might be helpful to Frank Crane?

Director AJER. We are using yours.

Deputy Commissioner WELSH. I am very glad to hear the gentleman from Wisconsin; I would like some information.

I think you commissioners must do this, whether the public or the employees are invloved. The Maryland law states employees. We have taken the course that it will also involve the public.

President CATHERWOOD. Thank you. I would like to express our appreciation to members of the panel for this interesting discussion.

[The Wednesday morning session recessed at 12 noon.]


Following a State luncheon in the Queen Anne Room of the Monteleone Hotel, delegates boarded buses for a tour of the facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration near New Orleans, as prearranged by the host Commissioner, Curtis C. Luttrell.


Presiding: MARTIN P. CATHERWOOD, Industrial Commissioner, New York

Department of Labor The business session convened in the Century Room of the Monteleone Hotel at 9:20 a.m., with President Catherwood presiding.

On behalf of the association, President Catherwood presented to host Commissioner Curtis C. Luttrell an attractively framed document. The inscription was read to the delegates.

The President then called upon R. E. Anderson to give the Report of the Auditing Committee.

Report of the Auditing Committee
Chairman: R. E. ANDERSON, Deputy Minister, Nova Scotia

Department of Labour The report of the auditing committee (See appendix B) was read by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted by the convention.

President CATHERWOOD. We now come to the Report of the Resolutions Committee, which is under the chairmanship of Carl Cabe.

Report of the Resolutions Committee Chairman: CARL CABE, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Labor

Resolution No. 1

National Safety Council Participation Whereas industrial safety can only be achieved through cooperation of employers, employees, and government, and

Whereas many employers and employees follow the National Safety Council's leadership in accident prevention, and

Whereas the Labor Conference of the National Safety Council is concerned that State labor departments are not represented in greater numbers in the National Safety Council, and

« AnteriorContinuar »