Document 2Dn7yNe0XK040qRe5jYvEYy6

FILE NAME: Crane Company (CRC) DATE: 1936 Oct 21 DOC#: CRC049 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo from S.A. Williams RE New Illinois Occupational Diseases Act - Two Copies General Headquarters October 21, 1936 Mr. S. A. Williams, Vice-President. \ ,-Re: & Illinois Occupational Diseases Act I discussed the new law and the question of our filing & an acceptance of Its provisions with Mr. Heth, with Mr. Clarke and with Mr. C. A. Livingston of the Illinois Manufacturers Association. I endeavored to see Mr. Donnelly, Executive Vice President of the I.M.A., hut he was out of the city during nil of the tine I was in Chicago. The unanimous recommendation is that Johns-Manvllle Corporation file a notice of acceptance. The only persons who are hesitating - and who have any justification for hesitating - are those whose businesses do not present an appreciable occupational disease hasard. Obviously, we do not fall into that classification. I am advised that those concerns whieh do have an occupational disease hasard - and par ticularly those which have a dust disease hasard - are filing notice of their acceptance of the Act. Mr. Heth, Mr. Clarke and Mr* Livingston confirmed the advice I gave you at our conference on this question, when Mr. Yoorhees and Mr. Kottcamp were present, to the effect that the power of the Industrial Commission to fix rules and regulations regarding the safeguarding of employees from the danger of . occupational disease w r contained in the Health & Safety Act and not in the Occupational diseases Act. The Commission has the power to establish these rules and regulations irrespective of Our acceptance or non-acceptance of the Occupational Diseases Aet so that nothing is gained on that score by failure to file, or delay in filing, the notice of acceptance. Moreover, if we do not file, we then become bound by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act which contains a provision that failure to d>ide by a rule or regulation of the Industrial Commission shall constitute negligence per se on the part of the employer. As Mr. Clarks pointed out, if wa are afraid the Commission will issue drastic rules and regulations, that Is all the more reason why we should file a notice of acceptance. The choice boils down to this* Do we wish to have a jury assess damages in cases of silicosis or asbestosis, or do we desire to be bound to pay only the com pensation rates prescribed by the Act? Thus stated, the answer is obvious. It Is my recommendation we file a notice of acceptance without further delay. Attached is a copy of a form of acceptance which has been prepared for your signature. If you will sign and return it to me, I shall see that it is promptly transmitted to the Industrial Commission hy Registered Mall. Please note that we are required to state the number of our employees. This means the number of employees in Illinois. ? The Aet requires that the employer shall either furnish Its employees personally or post in a conspicuous placa in the place of employment a copy of the notice or election. It is recommended that the first half of the attached acceptance (the part constituting the acceptance proper) be printed in large type and kept permanently on each bulletin board maintained in the Waukegan Plant. VANDIVER BROWN Legal Department VBT Enclos lire CC* Messrs. I. il. Voorhees J. P. Kottcamp (PERS.&CONF.Addressee Only) General Headquarters October 21, 1936 Mr. 8. A. William#, Vice-President. Ret Hew Illinois Diseases Act ' N I have advised you on several occasions that, under the Illinois lav and court decisions In effect today, ve can avoid all potential future liability as to those employees who may have incipient dust disease by discharging them within , sixty days after October 1, 1936. The nev Act provides that employees have no right under the Act unless they have been exposed during sixty days after its effective date. They have no right at common lav, this fact having been established in Vogel vs. Johns-Manyilia Products Core, and in the case of McCreery vs. Llbbrv-Ovens-Ford. Heither is there any chance that such employees could bring an action under Section 2 of the old Occupational Diseases Act upon the theory that the dust to ahich they were exposed vas "poisonous* since that lav was repealed as of October 1st. In other vords, such employees vould be entirely without a right of action against us if re leased before they had accumulated an exposure of sixty days or more. I did not at any time y^ftrmrniwnd that such employees be discharged wholesale but I felt it ay duty to call these facts to your attention for such action as you might determine upon after giving proper consideration to other factors. I have discussed with Ur. Heth, with Hr. Clarke and with the Illinois Manufacturers Association, the interpretation I have placed upon the lav and X find there is no conflict of opinion. Mr. Clarke advised Mr. Kotteamp that the Supreme Court would be very such tempted to reverse the position taken by it in the Vogel and McCreery oases if employers in Illinois should resort to this device in order to escape liability} how ever, he does not differ with me in his interpretation of the lav as it exists today. He merely thought it not only eonceivable but somewhat probable that the Supreme Court could, under certain circumstances, be induced to reverse itself, one of such circumstances being the sympathy it would feel for the employees if hundreds of them should be relegated to the scrap heap by callous employers taking advantage of their temporary legal immunity. There is another way in which the employer may minimise or eliminate the prospect of future liability to those employees -2- wiio have the disease at this time. The lav provides that the employer shall not he liable unless he has exposed the employee during a period of sixty days or more after the effective date of the Act". If, during the sixty day period, the employees are given work which does not Involve exposure to thedust hasard, the foregoing provision is Just as applicable as if the employee had been fired. Shifting the employee to nan-hazardous work prior to the expiration of the first sixty days and keeping him engaged on such vark during the remainder of his employment will result in a situation where "the employee w&s not exposed during the period of sixty days or more after the effective date of this Act to the hasard of sueh occupational disease*. YAHDI7ER BBOffH Legal Department YBiT ; CCx Messrs. E. M. Yoorhees J. P. Sottcamp (Per*.&Coaf.-Add.Only) }