The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1910-04-14

for the alleged exacting of releases from
liability for accident Under the laxit,
| arrai ignment, Jones, in his report, SAYS
The coal companies and other EN-
ployers of labor in Lackawanna count,
are very negligent in complying with the
provisions of the act approved June II
19ol, known as the compulsory education
law, also with the provisions of the ac,
approved May 20, 1907, (P. L. BAY
amending the act of 1901.
1T is true that some of the coal com.
panies have endeavored to faithfully com.
ply with the law, but have no hesita.
ton in saying that after investigation
the majority of coal companies in Lack.
awanna county have failed to make the
required report. Upon petition to court
believe the judges would direct writ
of mandamus to issue within the pro.
visions of the act, to comply with the law
and to make their reports to the proper
authorities, as provided by the act of as
sembly.''
Jones concludes his report with a Sc
we're denunciation of the alleged insist.
ence in releases from liability before en-
PioyhehC Is gwen TO boys.
soon discovered after beginning nv
investigation, says Jones, s'that some
coal companies were exacting from the
parents and guardians og boys, said to be
over IA years of age, release from the
right to recover damages in case of ac-
cldents to said minors while in the en-
ploy of the companies, and that the exc
cutlOn of Suph rp1aa do 4
ton precedent to their employment. Or
IN other words, when the parents or
guardians of boys refused to sign and
even acknowledge the release before an
officer empowered TO take acknowledge
ments under the laws of the state, re-
fusal to employ promptly followed
But where the release was executed
and acknowledged, no trouble or delay
was experienced in securing employment
for the minor, it is hardly necessary to
say that to compel one to execute a re-
lease from the right to recover damages
which may happen to one by reason of
the negligence of the employer, and is
made rigid condition precedent to
ones employment, is wrong, unjust and
unfair, and such a practice should be Sc
verely condemned.
If the purpose of such release is to
exempt the employer from liability in
case of accident to boys employed in the
mines in violation of the child labor law,
then the condition of the release would
not only be against the policy of the law,
but it would be also in direct violation
of the provisions of the act of assembly,
and the release would be null and void.
"Another practice also of the employ
ers of labor came to my notice. They
require the parent or guardian to exc
cute release from damages, which
might possibly happen to boy over
Ia years of age, by reason of any change
in his position or employment, even
though such new position nigh the ex-
tremely dangerous, the boy being unac-
quanted with his new position, and his
age, experience and strength wholly in
adequate to protect hima gainst such
dangers.
'Such release provides that the fore
man or other person in charge of the
eoliery shall have the right, at his dis
cretion, and without liability to the com
pany, to place the minor in any position,
however dangerous, and to change his
position at any and all times, no matter
how great the danger might be, without
the consent of the parent or guardian.
"It is, indeed, hard to believe that
any company or employer of labor would
sanction the action of its foreman or
other person having the right to employ,
in placing small boy in a dangerous
position-the boy whose tender age and
want of experience would quickly subject
him to loss of limb, or possibly death'