Page images
PDF
EPUB

body which have been found not compensable under present law, even though there is no doubt that the condition results from an injury which is compensable. Section 102 of the bill would increase the minimum payment per month from $112.50 per month to $225 per month unless the employee's monthly pay is less. We believe this increase in minimum benefits is entirely reasonable and proper. Section 103 would simply continue the payment for services, appliances and supplies previously furnished whenever there was a continuing need for such services and supplies after an employee has been placed on the civil service retirement rolls. In our judgment the present law is unnecessarily harsh in denying these benefits to an injured employee simply because he has elected, in most cases, to take advantage of the disability features of the civil service retirement laws.

Section 104 would amend the act to provide that a widow who subsequently remarries shall be paid 2 years' compensation in a lump sum upon such remarriage. The present law provides compensation only up to the time of death or remarriage and has resulted, in many cases, in widows remaining single rather than risk loss of the compensation. We venture the opinion that in many of these cases the actual cost to the Government is far in excess of what it would have been had the widow been paid a lump-sum settlement as provided in the bill. Section 105 would amend section K of the present act so as to provide that the monthly pay shall be considered not less than $300 as the basis for computing compensation under the act. We believe this is an entirely reasonable amendment and that the present act is so limited in this respect as to be lacking in reality.

Section 106 would amend the act by providing a funeral benefit of $800 maximum. In view of today's high prices, a $400 limitation on a funeral is unrealistic and we believe the proposed amendment is entirely just and reasonable. Section 107 would simply provide that compensation be based on the normal pay that an employee is accustomed to receive. We think it is basically unfair in those cases where premium pay is provided as a normal part of the compensation to deny the benefits of this premium pay to an employee who is injured on duty.

Section 108 would clarify present law and would provide that in the case of an employee who had no actual earnings and who refused to accept or to seek employment, that their wage-earning capacity shall be determined with due regard to the nature of their injury, the degree of impairment, their usual employment, and any other factors or circumstances which may affect his capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition. We believe this to be a highly desirable amendment to the act and would give the Bureau of Employees' Compensation the opportunity to consider all of the facts and make a fair and reasonable judgment in such cases.

Section 109 would add a new subsection (b) to section 24 by providing a penalty of a fine of $500 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, to any individual who either as a result of a false statement or an action causing a person to forgo the filing of any claim for compensation, or who willfully subjects any person to the deprivation of any rights granted under the act. Unfortunately, there have been cases where an overzealous supervisor has either discouraged, or in some cases forbidden, an employee from filing a claim, or who has maliciously withheld information that would have enabled an injured employee to perfect a claim for disability due to injuries. I think this is a reprehensible practice and certainly some penalty ought to attach to such actions. Section 110 is, in our judgment, one of the most important features of the bill. H.R. 10705. It would amend subsection (f) of section 40 which deals with recurrence of injuries so as to provide that the term "monthly pay” when used in the computation of benefits shall mean the monthly pay either at the time of the injury or the monthly pay at the time disability begins, or the monthly pay at the time disability recurs, whichever is greater. Due to the salary increases during the last 15 years, an employee who suffers a recurrence of an injury that took place in 1942, for example, received a compensation award totally unrelated to his current earning capacity. To our mind, this is not at all realistic and it is a great injustice, not only to the employee himself, but to his family.

Section 111 would add a completely new section to the act in order to take care of an employee who suffers either temporary or permanent total disability or partial disability and who within a year recovers sufficiently to resume suitable work. It provides that he shall be reemployed providing, of course, he is quali

fied to perform the duties of the position in the same position or a position of like seniority status and pay, or if not qualified to perform the duties of the position held at the time of the injury, but is qualified to perform other duties within the agency, be reemployed in such position as he can fill with the same seniority status and pay, or an approximation thereof consistent with the circumstances of his case. This proposed amendment would also extend benefits similar to those provided in cases of service-connected disability under section 14 of the Veterans' Preference Act, and provide benefits of a similar nature to the unremarried widow of a deceased employee to the same extent as is now provided by law to the unremarried widows of deceased members or former members of the Armed Forces. We believe that this legislation is eminently fair and should be enacted. Section 201 would provide an increase in compensation where injuries occurred prior to January 1, 1959. The increases provided are entirely reasonable and consistent with amendments to the civil service retirement law which the Congress has enacted to provide benefits for those on small annuities who retired many years ago.

In short, Mr. Chairman, we heartily endorse the entire bill H.R. 10705, and urge its early enactment.

Thank you.

Mr. WIER. The first witness this morning, to testify for the American Legion on the revisions that this committee has under consideration of the Federal employees' compensation law, will be Mr. Mears.

We have 21 bills in the committee, on which we have had hearings. We have two or three overall bills. So you can address yourself in any way you want. We have a copy of your statement. You may identify yourself to the reporter and proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. MEARS, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. MEARS. My name is John S. Mears, legislative representative of the American Legion.

Mr. Chairman, before I start this prepared statement, as you can see, Mr. Austin E. Kerby, with our national economic commission, is primarily concerned with the subject to which I am going to address myself. However, he is ill, and I am here to present his statement. We are only addressing ourselves to one small area of the subject matter which you are considering, and I believe that this provision is in other bills. However, Mr. Kerby addressed himself primarily

to H.R. 4017.

The American Legion appreciates this opportunity to appear and present its views relative to H.R. 4017, a bill to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act with respect to employment preference for disabled employees.

The American Legion endorses the ideas promulgated by H.R. 4017 subject, however, to the objections and conditions set forth below. We have publicly expressed our opinion that any Federal employee retired or separated for disability, and who subsequently recovers, should be reemployed by his former agency in his former position. While the purpose of H.R. 4017 supports this general view, we feel it will not accomplish what we deem to be necessary and desirable. First, we of the American Legion object to the 1-year limit as set forth on page 2, line 2, of the bill. We realize that this 1-year limitation probably coincides with the 1-year limit on hospitalization following release from military service with the right to reemployment in a civilian position under the Universal Military Training and

Service Act. The American Legion is of the opinion that the U.S. Government, as an employer, should have the responsibility of reemploying such a person upon recovery, regardless of the length of time of disability.

Further, we think that the prime responsibility rests upon the agency in which the person was previously employed. However, if reemployment cannot be accomplished, either because the agency is no longer in existence or it is not feasible to reemploy such a person, then the U.S. Civil Service Commission should order that the employee be reemployed in another Government agency, in a similar position of like seniority, status, and pay.

Secondly, we refer to paragraphs (c) and (d) commencing on page 2, line 19, of the bill, which the American Legion must oppose. The American Legion stands firmly in defense of the Veterans' Preference Act, because that statute was enacted with the unqualified endorsement of the American Legion. In fact, our organization was instrumental in drafting the language of that statute.

Resolution No. 236, approved by our 1959 national convention, reaffirms our position and is our authority for appearing here today. This resolution directs our national organization to

oppose any efforts to weaken or reduce veterans' rights and benefits in Federal employment as provided by the Veterans' Preference Act.

The American Legion will endorse and support legislation which would give persons recovering from a disability every right to return to work. However, we cannot endorse any proposal which will give the same preference or the same degree of preference to a person who is injured in civilian employment as is given to persons who suffer a service-connected disability in the Armed Forces of the United States, especially in time of war.

We also oppose the above-mentioned paragraphs (c) and (d) of H.R. 4017 since they will give to nonveterans a preference over and above the preference now given to honorably discharged veterans who served in the military service in time of war. This proposal would place us in the position of taking away veterans' preference which we are mandated to support and which we are convinced is proper and equitable.

It is not sufficient just to oppose a bill without offering a possible solution. Therefore, the American Legion suggests for the committee's consideration that paragraph (a) be revised to eliminate the 1-year limitation; that paragraphs (c) and (d) be amended to give these people preference over all other nonveterans but not equal to the preference now given to veterans. The preference given these people over other nonveterans should be in relation to certification for appointment, appointment, reinstatement, reemployment and retention in civilian positions including the benefits similar to those provided in section 14 of the Veterans' Preference Act.

Our support of the appeal benefits is based upon our understanding that such appeals have proven beneficial to veteran employees and certainly this benefit should be extended at least to these nonveterans who because of a civilian disability will have a greater risk of employment security.

Mr. WIER. Let me ask you, Mr. Mears: Were you here yesterday?

Mr. MEARS. No, sir; I was not here yesterday. I was here the first day, the 8th.

Mr. WIER. Yesterday this thing was pretty well discussed. I am sorry Mr. Goodell is not here, because he asked a lot of questions on this particular phase of restoration of preference rights.

Mr. MEARS. Well, we have always been very stanch supporters of veterans' preference.

Mr. WIER. That I can understand.

Mr. MEARS. And a few years ago, we came in conflict with some very strong forces to weaken and do away with veterans' preference, and during the course of those hearings we were told of the evils of veterans' preference. And I believe on March 8, when I was here, a standard phrase was used about the excellent nonveteran with 30 years' service being bumped by a new young veteran. Well, that is somewhat of an exaggeration; because of all of the regulations, bumping rights are in the same level and in the same competitive area. And at that time, we asked certain of the opposition to give us a case where that happened, and we also asked the Veterans' Service Office of the Civil Service Commission to see if any such case was on file there.

And to date, we have never actually found a case where a nonveteran who was a good employee and who had been in the service for 30 years had ever been in the same level of competition with the young veteran of 2 or 3 years' service.

And, of course, as I say, we get a lot of opposition, but we have always stood behind this, and I do not think that in actual practice it will hinder the reemployment of more than probably a relatively few disabled nonveterans if they are not given preference over and above veterans' preference.

Mr. WIER. Let me point out to you from memory one of the points that was raised that deals primarily with ability to do a job. It is raised on the differential between the 5-point veteran and the 10-point veteran. I do not know how familiar you are with this; but here is a post-office employee who happens to have a disability with a 10-point rating. He is not going to work in anything that affects his injury. Let us say he has lost a finger. He has probably lost a finger or two fingers on his left hand. Naturally, he is right handed.

Now, the question raised is why that fellow, who is not handicapped for his job, and who might be doing clerical work in the post office, and who would probably be recognized more fully if his right hand was disabled, in the post office, where you do a lot of handwork, is preferred when he has what could be termed a minor case, that does not affect his value as a worker one iota, over a 5-point veteran, who is more disabled, with a back injury, a spine injury?

The question is raised as to the differential that sets up that 10-point veteran, who is not at all disabled in the manner in which he works, over that 5-point veteran?

Mr. MEARS. First of all, in the example that you give, a gunshot wound veteran should be 10 points, too, unless he never filed a claim. Mr. WIER. They were not arguing the degree; they were arguing the fitness for the job. And this 10-point veteran, with a very minor disability-his disability may be 20, but nevertheless he is serviceconnected-has a preference over many veterans, 5-point veterans, who are far more disabled than he is.

In other words, they were trying to say, "This is special consideration for a fellow not entitled to that recognition over a fellow who is really crippled."

Mr. MEARS. I am somewhat vague in my memory of the Veterans' Preference Act. I would have to read it to refresh my recollection. But I do know that the 10 points is only as far as between hiring and firing. The 10 points is only a preference in hiring.

Mr. WIER. You just brought it up, did you not, in connection with the restoration?

Mr. MEARS. Well, a preference in restoration; but I am saying under the Veterans' Preference Act a 5-point and a 10-point veteran apply for a job. The 10-point veteran has that 5-point spread in appointment. But once they are both hired, if a reduction in force comes along, the 10-point veteran has no preference in reduction in force. Now, whether it applies to reappointment, and whatever that means, or rehiring, or restoration

Mr. ZELENKO. Of course, the point system was set up in some areas not so much on disability, but, for instance, the man who was shot might have had a lighter injury, but because of the risk he underwent they would give him a bettor standing. That is why you come across some fellows, let us say, who are not as disabled as others, but get more points, for the reason just outlined. It was not set up just on the disability phase.

Mr. MEARS. No, it was not, I do not think; but like I say, many, many people feel that a 10-point veteran has a preference in a reduction in force, too; but he really does not.

Mr. ZELENKO. I think he has it in the rehiring. On anything involving hiring, he has, but not involving firing.

Mr. WIER. That is the point raised. The question involved yesterday as to rights to position is one we have to go through ourselves in connection with the post office. The 10-point veteran has a preference, but he does not always get the job. From my own personal experience, I have appointed 5-point veterans where I thought they were more competent, over a 10-point veteran.

But what they were interested in was the restoration of an employee, finding a place for him, in a post office. They can take a restoration of an injury case or a disease case in a big post office. They will find a place for them. But when you get out in a town of 4,000, where there are 8 or 9 employees, even if this fellow has been injured, whatever kind of a veteran he is, or nonveteran, and the doctor OK's him for restoration to a job the postmaster might have some prejudice against him. They do not even have a probationary employee. They have all attained their statutory rights.

Now, then, the question is: Can they use their preference to get him the first job the Post Office Department can find-in maybe another city? That brought out the fact that this 10-point veteran gets the preference on that vacancy over the fellow that should have been returned to a job.

Mr. MEARS. Well, I can appreciate that.

Mr. WIER. This argument yesterday came up during the hearing. Do you want to ask any questions, Congressman?

Mr. O'HARA. You suggested, at one point in your testimony, that perhaps some preference might be given in hiring and reappointment

« PreviousContinue »