upr000190 109

Mr. E. E. Bennett - Los Angeles Las Vegas-August 28, 1953 W 2>1-1 E With respect to employment of Mr. Fred Howes, who formerly worked for the Union Pacific Railroad was put on leave of absence from the Railroad for a 90 day period at the time Production Facilities were transferred to Las Vegas Land and Water Company* During the time that Mr, Howes was on leave of absence from the Railroad, he decided to retire and therefore terminated his leave of absence and made out his retirement papers. At the time Mr. Howes terminated his leave of absence from the Railroad Company and made out hie retirement papers, he resigned from the Water Company on August 13, 1953 on advice of as representative of the Railroad Retirement Board that there be at least one day of unemploy­ment between his retirement and date of employment by Water Company. On August 19, 1953 Mr. Howes applied for reinstatement on the payroll of the Water Company and it was my thought that being a new employee of the Water Company he should go through a medical examination with Hospital Association Doctors. Dr. Hamill refused to examine Mr. Howes on account of the fact he was over 65 years old and therefore not eligible for employment. Mr. Howes is there­fore off the payroll of the Water Company from August 13th, until the present time. It seems to be an injustice to Mr. Howes that we were unable to employ him under Hospital rules and the matter was taken up with Mr. L. 0. Conners at the Los Angeles Office. Mr. Conners called August 25th, and stated that it was Mr. Johnson’s opinion that in view of the arrangements made between the Railroad Company and the Water Company, that Mr. Howes would be employed by the Water Company while on lei&ve from the Railroad Company, it was his opinion that not withstanding the fact that he had subsequently retired from the Railroad Company during his leave of absence, the Water Company could employ him without going through a medical examination by the Hospital Association Doctors and that we should therefore put him back on the payroll and in the event it ever became necessary to refer him to the doctor that we should give an order on the hospital in the usual manner and let the doctor raise the issue at that time as to whether he is entitled to hospital benefits. Of course, if he re-enters the employment of the Water Company, he will be charged the usual amount for hospital dues and will therefore be entitled to benefit under the hospital plan, even though he did not receive the doctors clearance at the time he entered employment with the Water Company. I would like very much to re-employ Mr. Howes and would appreciate your advice as to how it can be accomplished under the present circumstances. Please advise quickly as possible. L. R. Maag LRM:rr