UNIFORM PROGRAM-LICENSED VENDOR LISTING

Each of the following uniform vendors has received a vendor's license since distribution of Publication 136, Licensed Vendor Listing. This additional listing must be attached to Publication 136. These lists must be posted where they are readily available for employee's perusal.

Requisitioning Schedule for Plain Stamped Envelopes District and MSC Changes

Mr. GAYDOS. The next witnesses will be James L. Smith, Director, Industrial Relations, Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina, and Larry Hackler, Safety Director, Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

Welcome to the committee.

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. SMITH, DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CHARLESTON NAVAL SHIPYARD, CHARLESTON, S.C., ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD B. CONDON, HEAD EMPLOYEE SERVICE DIVISION, CHARLESTON NAVAL SHIPYARD, CHARLESTON, S.C.; LARRY HACKLER, SAFETY DIRECTOR, NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, NORFOLK, VA.; AND CARLA A. BASS, PERSONNEL CLERK, NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, NORFOLK, VA.

Mr. SMITH. Accompanying me is Edward B. Condon, Head, Employee Service Division, Charleston Naval Shipyard; Larry Hackler, Safety Director, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; and Carla A. Bass, Personnel Clerk, Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

Mr. GAYDOS. We appreciate your appearance. Your testimony will become a part of the record and the other committee members will have the benefit of your testimony.

Without objection, the chair will make your presentations a part of the formal record for the purposes just outlined. For practical purposes you may proceed in the way you deem best. You can sum it up and we will just talk about it back and forth; you do what you want to.

Mr. SMITH. If I may, I would like to read my statement. [The following statement was read by Mr. Smith:]

352

Statement of Mr. James L. Smith
Director of Industrial Relations
Charleston Naval Shipyard

Naval Base

Charleston, SC 29408

19 July 1977

Statement For The Subcommittee

On

Compensation, Health and Safety

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to report to you on some of the experiences we have had in the area of injury compensation claim cases, particularly hearing loss claims and "Continuation of Pay" cases based on traumatic injuries.

While I can speak with first hand knowledge regarding our experiences at the Charleston Naval Shipyard only, my conversations with my counterparts at other Naval Shipyards and with representatives of our Headquarters, the Naval Sea Systems Command, here in Washington indicate that these experiences are typical of those at all of the Shipyards.

First, let me assure you that every member of our management team fully appreciates the fact that employees are our most important and valuable commodity. We are vitally concerned about their safety and well being. from, not only the cost to the taxpayers, but primarily from the standpoint of the physical and other suffering experienced by them and their families when they suffer occupational injury or illness. Nevertheless, the thrust of our report to you today is to speak to the frustrations we are experiencing in those cases of occupational injury and illness benefit claims that appear to be questionable as well as what we see as weaknesses in the benefits program as administered by the Office of Workers Compensation Program, Department of Labor.

Unquestionably the vast majority of our employees are fully dedicated, completely honest and their occupational injury and illness claims are fully justified and appropriate. We do not question such cases in any In fact, we consider that we are obligated to and we will assist them in obtaining every benefit to which entitled to the full extent of our ability and authority.

way.

On the other hand, we as managers have an equal obligation to the government and the taxpayer to take whatever action feasible to guard against approval of unwarranted claims, regardless of whether the claimant is willfully filing a fraudulent claim, or honestly but mistakenly believes he has a legitimate basis for one. We are convinced there are some of each of these types, although admittedly a small percentage of the total number of claims.

The

If I may, first I will address the area of hearing loss claims. hearing conservation program at the Charleston Naval Shipyard began in 1957 when the audiometric testing of employees working in noise hazardous areas was initiated by our Medical Department. Complete noise surveys, personnel protective devices, education, audiometric testing and engineering controls have been part of this program for many years. Noise hazardous areas have been identified and appropriately marked by signs. In 1974, the Charleston Naval Shipyard Hearing Conservation Program was audited by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and the Environmental Protection Agency. Each of these independent reviews indicated the Shipyard program to be excellent. During the closeout discussion on a GAO-OSHA Audit, commencing in January 1975, the Department of Labor Industrial Hygienist commented that the Charleston Naval Shipyard had one of the best controlled hearing protection programs that he had seen and that all personnel checked by them in noise hazardous areas were found to be wearing proper ear protection. He did indicate, however, that we should be taking more positive action to engineer noise hazards out of facilities, equipment and work processes. Shipyard safety inspectors, as part of their observation and monitoring of a great variety of facilities and conditions prone to safety violations, visually determine whether personnel are wearing required hearing protection devices in hazardous noise areas. Since enforcement of shipyard policies for the wearing of personnnel protective gear is a responsibility assigned to all line supervisors, the inspector will report observed failures to the supervisor. It is the supervisor's duty to reprimand or to take stronger disciplinary measures as may be appropriate. However, if there should be a breakdown in supervision, the Safety Office would report the matter to next higher level of authority. Prior to the submittal of any project related to noise abatement, a check-off list for noise abatement criteria is completed to insure that potential problem areas are eliminated before proceeding with the project. A copy of a Hearing Conservation Brochure attached as Exhibit (1) which we recently prepared and distributed to all personnel is evidence of our continuing efforts to improve this program and protect our personnel by insuring they are fully informed of and understand the noise hazards that they face as well as necessary precautions.

Based on information furnished us by other Naval Shipyards and by the Naval Sea Systems Command, the Charleston Naval Shipyard stands third from the lowest in terms of hearing loss claims awarded by the Office of Workers Compensation Program. Hearing loss claims granted to Charleston Naval Shipyard employees by OWCP by fiscal year and through 30 June 1977 are as follows:

This, incidentally, is an average of $10,719 per claim.

94-539 - 78 - 24

Earlier, I alluded to weaknesses from our viewpoint in the program as administered by OWCP. For example, a person is employed by us with no prior federal service. In the pre-employment medical examination it is determined that he has a 35 percent binaural hearing loss. After being employed in the Shipyard for ten years, his hearing loss increases by 5 percent to a total loss of 40 percent. OWCP compensates the employee for the entire 40 percent loss even though 35 percent of it occurred prior to initial federal employment. We do not think it proper for the shipyard and the taxpayer to be held liable and pay for that portion of the loss that was in no way associated with his federal employment. Later in this statement we will cite some specific cases of this type.

Additionally, it appears to us that OWCP does not give adequate consideration and credit to investigations conducted by management or to certain types of information from outside medical authorities that is counter to the employees' claims. Here again we will cite some specific examples a little later.

Under OWCP's procedural regulations as we understand them, an employee or former employee filing a claim may appeal their decisions and have their claims reconsidered, either on the basis of the record as it exists or with new and additional information being considered. I am in full accord with this provision and consider that it is entirely proper. Conversely, however, OWCP makes no provision for and will not process an appeal from management when they have awarded a claim that we consider to be in error and unjustified. This we cannot understand and do not concur. However, outside of an appeal process as such, a representative of the Jacksonville, Florida OWCP has recently informed us at Charleston Naval Shipyard, informally, that they will reconsider a determination they have made if we submit to them factual, signed information which becomes available to us after their awards. This is certainly a step in the right direction which we appreciate.

While not generated by OWCP, there is another problem involving medical requirements that we do not concur in and which we consider impacts on the injury benefits program. Although, we have a Medical Department staffed with fully qualified Medical Doctors who have the responsibility to determine physical fitness of employees to perform their duties, we cannot require an employee to submit to examination by them under regulations of the Civil Service Commission. Management has the right to require an employee to submit to a fitness for duty medical examination and to take appropriate disciplinary or removal action if the employee refuses to do so. However, The Commission's regulations give to the employee the unilateral right to refuse examination by our Medical Doctors and demand to be examined, at our expense, by a doctor of his choice who is licensed and Board certified. We fully agree that an employee should be able to select a doctor to treat him. Also, I want to make it clear that I intend no disparagement to anyone in the medical profession. However, I must note that few, if any, outside doctors have any direct association with or knowledge of our Shipyard work operations and requirements. Therefore, we believe they are not as well prepared or qualified to determine the employee's fitness for duty, nor would they have any knowledge of other