As a matter of fact, we often have them work overtime to get these notices to Mr. Mackall's organization so there wil be no undue delay in getting notices. Senator MORSE. That information in regard to your procedure is already part of the record. Mr. Lee, do you have any questions? Mr. LEE. No, sir. Senator MORSE. Mr. Gulledge, do you have any questions? Senator MORSE. Well, I thank both Mr. Mackall and Mr. Hetzel. Are there any witnesses in the room that have arrived since we opened the hearing, to testify in regard to the request that was made by the chairman for their appearance here today in regard to the allegations of Mr. Smith that some companies had moved out of the District because of "model legislation" passed by the Congress? I don't want to miss any such witnesses. I am going to notify the staff that unless we find it necessary to have a meeting on Monday in response to the subpenas that will be issued for the compulsory attendance of witnesses that did not appear voluntarily this morning, unless there are further attendances excused by the filing of a statement acceptable in lieu of their appearance, and unless we have a meeting on Monday to hear those witnesses that we subpena, I will schedule an executive committee hearing of this committee at 9 o'clock on Tuesday morning or at some other later date, if it becomes necessary, because I want to dispose of this matter if possible by the end of next week. Anything further, Mr. Lee? Mr. LEE. No, sir. Senator MORSE. There will be included in the record a letter from the Government of the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board signed by Mr. Wharton, dated April 23; and from Mr. Press of the Washington Board of Trade, a letter dated April 24; and from the Washington Restaurant Association, a letter dated April 30, 1958. (The letters referred to are as follows:) WASHINGTON RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate District Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I would like to add the enclosed information to our brief which was presented on April 21 at the Senate District Committee hearing on S. 3493 on behalf of the Washington Restaurant Association. This information from five restaurants shows the abuse of our own employment benefits and why disqualifications should be as strong as possible so only qualified persons can draw on these accounts. The names, amounts they drew, and reasons for leaving employment are shown. We feel this is pertinent information and we are indeed happy to have it included. We thank you for the opportunity. Sincerely, ALFRED A. MCGARRAGHY. Blue Bell System, Inc., and Waffle Shops, Inc., unemployment benefits charged, year 1957 Report on unemployment compensation payments for Tally-Ho Shops, Inc., 812 17th Street NW., period Jan. 1, 1958, through Apr. 25, 1958 Chairman, District of Columbia Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare and Safety, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Enclosed please find case histories of unemployment compensation benefits paid to claimants from our reserve account for the period from July 1, 1956, to June 30, 1957. This is an all-inclusive list for this period as submitted to us by the District Unemployment Compensation Board. We feel strongly against any further liberalization of the District of Columbia unemployment compensation law and support Congressman McMillan's bill with the disqualification provisions appended thereto. Any consideration you may give to this information in arriving at a just decision for all will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, RULON-HENDERSON INC., By W. B. RULON. Jr., President. Report of Hogate's Seafood Restaurant on unemployment compensation cases for period from July 1, 1956, to June 30, 1957 2.. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 7.. 8.. 9.. 10. 11. 12.. 13.. 14. 15.. 16. 17.. 18.. July 8, 1957 to Dec. 31, 1957. 600 598 Discharged; asked to scrub din ing room floor, refused. Reported to work drunk. Laid off; lack of work. 66 Quit. 378 Do. Operation closed. Discharged; caught off base with truck, liquor found on truck. 210 Reported work drunk; was told to go home and report next day; failed to return. Do. Chairman, Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety Subcommittee, Senate District Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In response to your invitation to submit comments on the Commissioners' bill to amend the Unemployment Compensation Act, S. 3647, I am submitting below observations reflecting the policy of the Washington Board of Trade respecting such bill. S. 3647, if enacted, would scrap the variable duration provision of the District of Columbia law and substitute therefor a 26-week uniform duration provision. For the reasons stated in Mr. Gunther's testimony before the committee and included in my letter of April 23 to you, we oppose enactment of this provision. May I emphasize our conviction that it is not practical to simply provide for uniform duration in the District law without amending other provisions of the law which were designed for a variable duration system. The board of trade is on record in favor of increasing the maximum weekly benefit amount to $35. The question of raising that figure to $40 has not been considered by our employment and security committee or by the board of directors. Hence I am unable to state at this time if such a maximum would be acceptable to our people. We wholeheartedly support the section of the bill which would provide for voluntary contributions to the fund by employers. This is one of the recommendations we made to the Unemployment Compensation Board and which is included in Mr. McMillan's bill. At the same time the above recommendation was made, the board of trade urged that two other provisions be inserted in the law for the purpose of preventing further growth of the unemployment-compensation trust fund. These other two provisions are included in the McMillan bill. One of them proposes to credit all interest received on the trust fund to active employers' accounts. The other one would reduce the reserve fund requirements entitling employers to reduced benefits. Both of these proposals, we believe, are sound and reasonable in view of the size of the District of Columbia fund. Very truly yours, WILLIAM H. PRESS. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Pursuant to the request from the staff of your committee, I wish to supplement information supplied by this Board as a part of the hearings in S. 3493 and H. R. 2419. It is not believed that Commissioner McLaughlin intimated that individuals who are ineligible for benefits under existing law would be eligible under S. 3493 if passed when he stated that it would be desirable to stay within the insurance concept. His statement had to do with the extent or amount of benefits certain fringe individuals might draw under the present law and under your bill. An example would be of a housewife who worked in a department store at Christmas and at odd times during the year at various sales. If this individual earned $230 in the Christmas quarter and $115 in the remaining quarters of her base period she would be eligible under existing law and your bill. In each instance she would receive a weekly benefit of $10 but under existing law would receive only $115 in benefits, whereas under your proposed bill, she would receive $390 or $45 in excess of the wages received by her during her base period. Because of the limited stepback provision in your proposed bill less individuals would be eligible for benefits than under existing law. It has been estimated that your bill might declare as many as 6 percent of the claimants ineligible who now receive benefits. However, there would be a few people in the bottom brackets that might be eligible under your bill but not under existing law, because your proposed bill sets out no minimum benefit amount. The number involved would be negligible as illustrated by the fact that only 216 claimants received benefits of as low as $8 during 1957. Your staff has also asked me to furnish information on the volume of cases involved if the penalty due date under the act was postponed by 15 days. During the past 5 quarters this Board has waived 150 penalties for individuals who claim to have mailed their reports on time, but whose reports bore a postmark of a later date. The number of cases waived does not constitute the entire volume as some individuals paid the penalty not requesting waiver. Other cases may still be outstanding. In addition to those waived for this specific cause, many other penalties which have been waived for various other causes would not have been set up if the 15-day grace period had been in effect. The volume in this area is large, and if the penalties were not set up, because of a 15-day grace period, administrative expense would be saved. Respectfully, Senator MORSE. Any other witnesses to be heard? C. A. WHARTON. Senator MORSE. If not, we stand adjourned and the hearing is closed. (Whereupon, at 10: 45 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned.) Subsequently the following communications were received:) WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND LETTERS AFL-CIO SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE At the request of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health, Edu'cation, Welfare, and Safety of the Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate, we would like to submit the following observations on a portion of testimony presented by the representative of the board of trade. ww |