On review, the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division (Administrator) argues that the ALJ erred by reducing the Wage and Hour CMP assessment amount for certain post-November 5, 1990 violations "based solely on the fact that Wage and Hour assessed higher CMPs for continuing child labor violations after the effective date of Congress' tenfold increase in the allowable maximum CMPs." Statement of the Administrator (SA) at 4-5.

SA at 1-2. The ALJ found that, "all but one of the 32 child labor violations found by the compliance officer are supported by credible evidence of record." D. and O. at 10. He also held that "[t]he corporation's illegal employment of children was not sporadic but involved a majority of its employees. It is also obvious that the corporation was of sufficient size to be knowledgeable of the child labor requirements." Id. at 13. Despite the ALJ's conclusions that the penalties recommended by Wage and Hour officials were, "entitled to respect," and "not inappropriate," D. and O. at 11-12, he found "no reason the post-November 5, 1990 penalties should exceed the amounts proposed for the same violations that occurred prior to that date." Id. at 15.

    The Administrator argues that the ALJ's ruling, which we find overall to be both thorough and in accordance with the directives of the Act and the regulations, 29 U.S.C. § 216(e) and 29 C.F.R. § 579.5, is inconsistent with the Secretary's decision in a similar case which addressed this same issue. In Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division v. Chism Trail, Inc., d/b/a Maxi Food and Ray Chism, Jr., Case No. 92-CLA-45, June 30, 1993, slip op. at 9, the Secretary, after an exhaustive review of the legislative history accompanying the increase in allowable child labor civil money penalties, noted that "the legislative history of the increased CMP provision as well as the Department's own regulatory history establishes that the substantial increase in the CMP maximum was to have an impact on penalty sizes -- even in cases which do not present the most egregious violations." (Emphasis supplied). One cannot review the legislative history of this amendment without coming to an understanding that the key underlying Congressional purpose in its enactment was to provide more vigorous enforcement of the child labor restrictions, including, inter alia, the use of the CMP mechanism. This is even more crucial in situations where, as here, underaged children are involved in an occupation and/or a working practice which the Secretary of Labor has deemed to be unacceptably hazardous. See, e.g., Administrator v. Navaho Manufacturing, Case No. 92-CLA-13, Sec. Dec., Feb. 21, 1996, slip op.

    The ALJ has conscientiously carried out his fact finding and interpretive responsibilities under the Act. However, with regard to the issue of increased penalties for violations that span the "pre" and "post" amendment periods, we find his interpretation of law to be unduly restrictive and contrary to expressed Congressional purpose.

    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the contested civil money penalties be reinstated. Respondents shall pay civil money penalties totaling $23,500.00 to the United States Department of Labor.

    SO ORDERED.

      DAVID A. O'BRIEN
      Chair

      KARL J. SANDSTROM
      Member

      JOYCE D. MILLER
      Alternate Member