299 N.Y. 419 | NY | 1949
Lead Opinion
On May 2, 1944, claimant, then a minor sixteen years of age, was injured while operating a metal stamping machine a few hours after he had commenced the employment for which he had received an employment certificate from the board of education. The employment certificate had been duly filed in the employer's office before claimant commenced work. The machine which he operated was guarded and its operation required no particular skill.
The Workmen's Compensation Board awarded claimant compensation for a permanent injury and ordered the employer to pay a like amount as additional compensation under section
Section
We are called upon to decide (1) whether the description in the pledge of employment was inadequate and rendered the employment certificate void; (2) whether the failure to fulfill the notice requirements of the statute constitutes a violation of the Labor Law so as to impose liability under section 14-a.
Minors between sixteen and eighteen years of age may not be employed unless "a standard employment certificate * * * issued in accordance with the provisions of the education law is kept on file in the office of the employer" (Labor Law, §
In the instant case, the employer executed a pledge of employment describing claimant's prospective employment as that of helper to do light factory work and the employment certificate was issued by the certificating officer. In hearings before the referee, a representative of the board of education testified that, had the pledge of employment made clear that claimant would be put to work on a power-driven machine, further investigation would have been made before the employment certificate was issued. *423
The Labor Law does not prohibit the employment of minors over sixteen in the operation of power-driven machines and the Board of Standards and Appeals has made no rules prohibiting such employment. The description in the pledge of employment would seem to cover the operation of a simple machine requiring no skill to operate and there is no indication that the phrase "light factory work" had a special meaning to the board of education and that its use to describe generally the duties which claimant was to perform was misleading.
It cannot be said that the employer's use of general terms constituted a false statement or that the employment of claimant at the machine in question was prohibited merely because the board of education would have referred the case to an investigating officer if the pledge of employment had disclosed that claimant would be employed to operate a machine. If, after a minor has begun to work, an investigation discloses that the work undertaken is dangerous to his health, a certificating officer has the power to revoke the employment certificate (Education Law, §
The employer violated the Labor Law by failing to discharge the duty imposed by section 132. We conclude, however, that the failure to mail notices of the beginning and end of employment and the failure to return the employment certificate to the board of education in the circumstances of this case do not constitute violations of the Labor Law contemplated by section
The purpose of section 14-a is to award adequate compensation to a minor employee (Bogartz v. Astor,
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the award of the Workmen's Compensation Board annulled, with costs to the appellant in this court and in the Appellate Division against the Workmen's Compensation Board.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that there is evidence in the record to support the board's finding that the Labor Law was violated in that the services of claimant were obtained without full disclosure by the employer of the specific type of work in which he was to be engaged, viz., operation of an electrically driven, metal stamping power press.
LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, DESMOND, DYE and FULD, JJ., concur with BROMLEY, J.; CONWAY, J., dissents in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc. *425