CHAPTER €.4 CLAIMS Numerous claims and suits have been instituted by returning employees, These claims fall into the following categories: 1, Claims based upon allegations that discharges for cause were unjustified, 26 Claims for bonuses in cases of voluntary termination because of physical condition, 3. Claims for refunds of employees! travel fund, Lo Claims arising out of alleged personal injuries. A total of 146 formal claims were entered during the period between the inception of work and July 1, 1951. were rejected, and 53 are pending. Of these, 41 were settled, 52 Settlements involved the payment of $6,795. The total value of all claims, including those settled, rejected, and pending, was approximately $286,000, including $250,000 claimed as compensation for alleged personal injuries arising out of employment at the Jobsite, In carrying out the responsibility of handling all personal claims arising out of employment under Contract AT-(29-1)-507, the Personnel Department maintained close liaison with the AEC and provided a constant flow of claims information to the AEC officials con=cerned, One of the most prolific sources of claims was connected with return travel funds withheld to assure contract completion. By the terms of the original employment agreement, specific weekly amounts, up to 4 total of $250, were withheld from each overseas employee's wages as a contingent fund to pay for the cost of return travel in the event of the failure of the employee to complete his contract by reason of fault or voluntary termination, The $250 sum established was intended to cover the cost of commercial transportation from Honolulu to the West Coast of the United States, and no provision was made for recoupment of the cost of MATS transportation from Eniwetok to Honolulu. However, on August 29, 1950, the AEC directed Holmes & Narver~ to recover from de- faulting employees the cost of transportation furnished by MATS from Eniwetok to Honolulu, or from Eniwetok to the West Coast. The amounts involved were $312 and $480, respectively, Under the terms of the directive, H & N retained all moneys due to defaulting employees neces-— sary to cover the travel cost shown, Such action appeared to the defaulting employees involved to be in contravention to the terms of the employment agreements which provided a $250 maximum travel fund, A test case was brought before the Labor Commissioner of the State of California during December 1950 and was defended at the direction 1,20 letter SD 6004, dated August 29, 1950. 8-15