during May 1992, the manager of the Antelope Subway facility was Cheryl Lane; and he did not remember whether the following individuals were employed at the Antelope Subway facility for the period between February 1990 through June 1992: Tracie Allanach, Kelli Bert, Miranda Wilkins, Darla Ponce, Christa Golinski and Dawn Gold.

   The issue for determination is whether the 1992 civil money penalties were properly assessed against Respondent. The Secretary submits that they were and, additionally, an enhancement factor doubling the initially-assessed penalties is appropriate in the instant matter because it was a second investigation, which resulted in citations for the same violations. At the trial, the counsel for the Secretary made an amendment to the civil money penalties assessed on GX III: 6, Item 18. Under item 18, "Child Labor Record Keeping", the sixteen (16) noted violations were reduced to five (5), due to the documentation submitted by Respondent and, accordingly, the civil money penalty for that item was reduced from $5,600 to ,750. TR 14.

Excluded evidence

   Counsel for the Secretary of Labor requested that GX IV: 3, 4 and 5 be admitted. These exhibits are responses to the mailed interview forms from T. Allanach, D. Gold and D. Ponce, regarding their alleged use, dismantling and cleaning the electric meat slicer. TR 126-127. These three individuals did not testify and the charges involving their hazardous occupation are based only upon their mailed responses. TR 126-127. Respondent requested these statements not be admitted in the interest of fairness because he was not apprised of the allegations of these specific individuals beforehand and did not have opportunity to address their contentions. TR 126-134. Due to Respondent's insufficient notice of these three individuals' allegations prior to the hearing and his resultant inability to adequately prepare, respond to or cross-examine their allegations, I excluded these three statements, GX IV: 3, 4, and 5. TR 134. Without anything to substantiate the Secretary's charges regarding violations of Hazardous Occupation Order 10 for these three individuals, any citations and civil money penalties assessed against Respondent for Allanach, Gold and Ponce are

hereby dismissed. Additionally, the Secretary is dropping the alleged violation respecting one employee from Respondent's Oroville store.

Testimony

   Viola Taylor has been an investigator for the Wage Hour Division since 1985. TR 15. Ms. Taylor investigated alleged hours/times Regulation 3 violations in Respondent's three Sacramento Subway Sandwich facilities in 1990, located at El Camino, Truxell and Antelope Roads. TR 16-17. As a result of this investigation she cited Respondent for child labor law violations and assessed civil money penalties. TR 18. Subsequently, Ms. Taylor provided the managers of all three facilities a reference guide to the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including sections regarding permissible hours of work and the prohibition against minors use of meat slicers and power operated machinery. TR 21. Ms. Taylor noted no violations with respect to the operation of the meat slicers by minors in 1990. TR 22.

   Ms. Kathy Noel has been an investigator for the Wage Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor since 1988. TR 82. On May 2, 1992, Ms. Noel received a telephone call from Miranda Wilkins for the purposes of lodging a complaint regarding her work at Respondent's Antelope Subway store. TR 84. Ms. Wilkins alleged that she was "working more than three hours on a school day, more than 18 hours in a school week and past 7:00 pm, or 9:00 pm, if it was June 1 through Labor Day." TR 84-85. On May 5, 1992, Ms. Noel initiated an investigation at the Antelope store, first checking whether there was a prior history of violations or compliance at that store. TR 85-86. She found Ms. Taylor's prior investigation, which found hours and times violations, with unpaid civil money penalties. TR 86. She then visited the Antelope Subway facility and met with manager Cheryl Lane. TR 87. Ms. Lane telephoned Respondent and Ms. Noel spoke with him to let him know that she was investigating the store. TR 87. He gave her permission to look at the time cards for that store and to verify certain information on minors under age 18. TR 87. Ms. Noel transcribed the information on the time cards and then toured the shop to looking for any hazardous machinery. TR 98. She found the meat slicer but saw no signs

prohibiting minors under age 18 from using it. TR 98.

   Approximately two or three days later, Ms. Noel visited Respondent's El Camino Subway because she had asked him on the telephone about any other stores that he owns. TR 99. She met with the manager of that store, Mary Lee, and her investigation proceeded much as it had at the Antelope location. TR 99. However, when Ms. Noel requested the time cards, she was informed that there were no time cards as she had thrown them all out when Respondent's father told her to clean up the office. TR 99-100. Employers are required to keep time cards for two years. TR 99. Ms. Lee also told her that Jason Lee was her son, he was under 16 year of age and he sometimes worked until 9:00 pm, beyond the 7:00 pm standard. TR 100. Ms. Lee was under the impression that because he was her son, he was exempt from the child labor laws. TR 100.

   After her investigation, Ms. Noel typed and sent to Respondent a WH-103, which is a notice to employers about the types of violations found and the minors involved. TR 135. Ms. Noel found violations for hours/times: past three hours on a school day, over 18 hours in a week and hours past 7:00 pm or 9:00 pm for minors under age 16. TR 138. These violations were repeat violations because they were the same type that Respondent was cited for in 1990. Moreover, he had knowledge of the child labor laws because he was informed verbally about them in the first investigation and was provided a handbook. TR 138. Moreover, Ms. Noel provided Respondent information on the laws and he obtained knowledge during the 1990 investigation. TR 138. She also found a hazardous occupation violation because of the use of the power-operated meat slicer by minors. TR 139. The civil money penalties for each of the violations was subject to a 2.0 multiplier for any of three of the following reasons: (1) the fact that these current violations were recurring child labor violations from the first investigation; (2) "falsification, concealment of child labor," because there were no time records, as required under the law to make a determination of compliance; and (3) failure to assure compliance. TR 141-143. When one factor is present, the investigators apply it to all the violations because it must be applied uniformly. TR 143. All of these penalties and the appropriate factors are federal standards determined by the Labor Department in Washington, D.C., and the

investigators have no discretion in their assessment of penalties. TR 140, 149.

   Ms. Miranda Wilkins was employed at the Antelope Subway facility from approximately September 1991 to April 1992. TR 24. She was fourteen years of age when she was hired and the manager of that facility at that time was Cheryl Lane. TR 24. Ms. Wilkins' job duties included food preparation and closing the facility at the end of the evening. TR 25. On week nights, she would close the shop at 10:00, even though she attended school during the day. TR 25. She normally worked about five days a week and would close the shop at 10:00 approximately three nights during the week. TR 26. Ms. Wilkins filed a complaint with the Department of Labor because of the hours she was working and because, at least once a week, she was required to disassemble, wash and reassemble the meat slicer. TR 27-28. Ms. Wilkins stated that nobody ever told her not to use the meat slicer. TR 28.

   Ms. Christa Galinski was employed at the El Camino Subway facility from approximately March 1990 until June 1990, during which time she was sixteen years of age. TR 37-38. Her job duties included making sandwiches and preparing meats and vegetables for the next day. TR 38. Preparing the meats often required slicing the pastrami with the electric meat slicer (all other meats were pre-sliced). TR 38-39. She also shredded the lettuce and onions with the electric slicer. TR 41. On cross-examination, Ms. Galinski stated that she did not remember any sign relating to use of the meat slicer on the wall behind the slicer. TR 42-43. She also stated on re-direct that had there been a sign prohibiting her from using the slicer, she "would not have used it because she did not like to use it anyway." TR 44.

   Ms. Kelly Estacio, referred to as Kelli Bert in the charging documents, worked at the Antelope Subway franchise from March to June 1992. TR 46-47. She was fifteen years of age and was attending high school during this time. TR 46-47. Cheryl Lane was the manager at that facility. TR 47. Ms. Estacio was a sandwich maker, which required her to slice meats and vegetables with the electric slicer. TR 48-49. She was never told not to use the slicer nor was a sign posted around the

meat slicer area prohibiting minors under age 18 from using it. TR 52. Ms. Estacio also closed the store at night, which required her to, among other things, clean the slicer. TR 48. The store closed at midnight and she often closed the facility by herself. TR 48. Ms. Estacio stated that she closed on many occasions and did not understand why her time cards, located at GX III:4, indicated that she only worked until closing on one night. TR 51-52. She stated that there were "some days missing because I worked until 12:00 quite a bit of the time." TR 58. Her mother would sometimes go into the store's lobby and wait for her so she would not have to be there by herself. TR 49.

   Ms. Jacqueline Bert is Kelly Estacio's mother. TR 61. Ms. Bert testified that her daughter worked at the Antelope Subway Sandwich store from March to June or July in either 1991 or 1992. TR 61-62. Ms. Bert stated that she would visit her daughter at the Subway shop "[a]ny time after 7:00 or 9:00 at night until 1:00 in the morning" sitting with her until she closed the store. TR 62-63. She did so because she did not think it appropriate for someone her daughter's age to be alone at that time of night. TR 62-63. Ms. Bert observed her daughter using the electric meat slicer every time she was there. TR 63. Respondent's father would occasionally come in about 12:30 or 1:00 to get the cash and lock the doors. TR 64. He got angry when he saw Ms. Bert there with her daughter and told her she should not be there during her daughter's work hours. TR 65. Ms. Bert told him that she would be there as long as her daughter was required to close the store by herself. TR 65. Out of concern for her daughter, Ms. Bert contacted the Labor Commissioner and obtained a labor handbook. TR 65. She also had conversations with the manager, Cheryl, in which she reported her concerns over her daughter's use of the electric meat slicer and the fact that she was in the store by herself late at night. TR 65-67. She also reminded Cheryl that her daughter was in high school. TR 67. Ms. Bert gave Cheryl the labor book that she had received because Cheryl told her that she was not aware of the labor laws and there was nothing posted in the shop stating what they were. TR 66-67.

   Ms. Jennifer Stewart worked at the Antelope Subway franchise from February 1990 through November 1992. In

February 1990, she was sixteen years of age. TR 71. In the course of her duties, she was required to use the electric meat slicer to cut pastrami, onions, lettuce and bell peppers. TR 72. She would use it maybe once on Saturday and once on Sunday because she only worked on weekends. TR 73. When she first started working there, she did not use the meat slicer. TR 73. Then, a new manager, Cheryl Lane, took over and that was when Ms. Stewart began using the slicer. TR 73. She has used it in both manual and electric mode. TR 74. She also removed some of the parts of the slicer to clean it. TR 74. Ms. Stewart stated there was no sign in the area of the slicer stating that minors under age 18 were prohibited from operating it. TR 74.

   Ms. Mary Francis Lee, Respondent's manager at the El Camino store, was in charge of purchasing and preparing the food and hiring/firing employees. TR 185-186. Ms. Lee, however, also worked at the Antelope store on occasions and her testimony relates to both stores. TR 195, 202. She has worked for Respondent since August 1991. TR 191. Ms. Lee kept information in her files regarding the ages of individuals she could hire and how many hours they could work. TR 186. Additionally, they had signs posted above the slicer regarding the minimum age required to use it, stating that nobody under age 18 was to use it. TR 187, 193. When she opened the store in the morning, she would slice the pastrami and lettuce, which were the foods that required use of the electric meat slicer. TR 187. She would try to slice enough of these items to get through the day, but before she left at 5:00 pm, she would slice more if they were short on these items. TR 187. Although she worked almost every day, when she was not there, someone else over 18 years of age would do the slicing. TR 187. Also, because she lived only one or two blocks away, she would return to slice if they ran out of pastrami or vegetables. TR 187. Ms. Lee stated that there are four different parts on the slicer that are disassembled and placed in the sink when the slicer is cleaned. TR 193. Although the blade cover is removed, the blade does not come off and it is just washed off. TR 193.

   Ms. Lee also stated that she erroneously threw out the records at the El Camino store when Respondent's father asked her to reorganize the office. TR 195. As she was going through files, she just threw out papers she did not believe were

necessary, including records of employees that had worked there prior to her tenure. TR 196. Ms. Lee stated that she was not aware that they were required to maintain these records. TR 196. She remembered signing a statement, GX IV:9, stating that the files were thrown out about a week prior - around May 31, 1992, a date subsequent to the commencement of the investigation. TR 202. However, next to her signature, she wrote the date of May 7, 1992, indicating the date she signed the statement. TR 208-209. Ms. Lee could not explain this three week discrepancy, other than stating that she was just "being sloppy on my dates." TR 209.

   Mr. Jason Lee is Ms. Mary Lee's son and worked for her at the El Camino store. TR 215-216. Jason began working in June 1991, at age 14. TR 217. He stated that he never used the electric slicer. TR 216. From 1991 until about May or June 1992, he sometimes worked when his mother was not at the store, but there were always other people working while he was there. TR 219. He did not know the ages of the others that were working. TR 220. Although he did not use the slicer, it was used by others while he was there. TR 220. Jason stated that nobody under age 18 used the slicer because there was a note on the slicer prohibiting use by anyone under age 18, as well as a similar sign posted on the wall. TR 222.

   Ms. Jessica Anne Austin was hired for Respondent's Antelope store at age 16. TR 224. Ms. Austin was questioned by Respondent, on direct, about whether she had ever used the electric slicer and she replied no because of the sign on the wall prohibiting her from using it and because "every time I saw you, you said, do not use the meat slicer.'" TR 224. Ms. Austin began working there in January 1992, and she could not remember the name of the manager who was there when she started, but subsequently, somebody named Mary became the manager. TR 225. Ms. Austin worked an average of four hours daily, and did not believe that she ever worked past 10:00 pm. TR 226-227.

   Ms. Deniz Hazeghazam is the Respondent's wife and she assisted in his operation of his stores, especially the Antelope location, between 1986 and 1993. TR 228-229. Ms. Hazeghazam never noticed anybody under age 18 using the electric

slicer and testified that there are signs prohibiting such in all stores. TR 230. However, on cross-examination, she replied that she did not necessarily know the ages of all the employees because there was no need for her to know since they had a manager to hire and fire employees. TR 232.

   Mr. Mehrat Hazeghazam is Respondent's brother and was managing at the El Camino store during the relevant period of the subject investigation. TR 235. Their policy, upon hiring an employee, was to instruct them not to touch the slicer if they were under age 18. TR 237. Using the slicer was a "management job" and when they opened the store, it was management's job to slice the meats and vegetables. TR 237. There was also a sign prohibiting use by those under age 18 and they were constantly telling their employees under age 18 not to use it. TR 237.

   Mr. Massoud Hazeghazam is Respondent's father and oversaw operation of the Antelope store between 1986 and 1994, the year Respondent sold that store. TR 239-240. Massoud would go to the store every day at 7:00 am to prepare for the day so when the employees arrived at 10:00 am, everything was ready for the store to be opened. TR 240. When asked what he thought the term under age is, he stated that "--I believe under 16 should not work in the store and should not work on some equipment that we have there, as the slicer,...because they have blades...." TR 241. Because he has trouble speaking English, he did not a have good relationship with the employees and Shelly would act as liaison. TR 243-244. He also did not hire or fire employees and he never asked them their ages. TR 244.

   Respondent testified that his defense is that he has educated his employees and managers about child labor laws. TR 250. He posted the requisite signs after the first investigation and citations because he took those citations very seriously. TR 250.

The law

   "No employer shall employ any oppressive child labor in commerce in the production of goods for commerce

or in any enterprise engaged in commerce or in any enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." 29 U.S.C.A. §212. Regulation 3 defines the number of hours minors are permitted to work and the types of occupations they may work in. Hazardous Occupation Order 10 prohibits certain occupations considered particularly hazardous for minors under age 18. This prohibition includes electric meat slicers used in restaurants, such as is used in Respondent's Subway Sandwich stores. Dole v. Stanek, Inc., 29 WH Cases 1422, (N.D. Iowa 1990). Respondent was previously cited for Regulation 3-- hours violations, and was advised about his obligations regarding the child labor laws at that time. He was also warned about the use of the electric meat slicer, even though he was not cited for any such violations at that time. In his defense, Respondent relies on the fact that he is an absentee employer, that he has told his managers and employees of the requirements of the child labor laws and that he has received written permission from at least one of the minor's parents to waive application of these child labor provisions. The law, however, states that none of these is a defense to an employer's failure to comply with the child labor provisions.

   The child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act impose a nondelegable responsibility on an employer which cannot be discharged by delegation to subordinates. Wirtz v. Fettig Canning Corp., 15 WH Cases 818 (DC So.Ind. 1963). The fact that managers have scheduled the employees does not absolve an employer from responsibility. Usery v. Dutschke, 22 WH Cases 1089 (1976). This nondelegable duty requires the employer "inquire into the conditions prevailing in his business. He does not rid himself of that duty because the extent of the business may preclude his personal supervision, and compel reliance on subordinates." "...the duty must be held personal, or we nullify the statute..." Lenroot v. Interstate Bakeries Corp., 146 F.2d 325, 328 (citing Justice Cardozo in People v. Sheffield Farms-Slawson-Decker Co., 121 N.E. 474, 476). Moreover, an employer may not rely on a waiver of the application of child labor laws by the parents of the minors. McLaughlin v. McGee Bros. Co., 28 WH Cases 808 (1988). Finally, any

alleged warnings given to minor employees do not absolve an employer from liability. Marshall v. Emes Provisions Company, 23 WH Cases 63 (1977); Marshall v. Goldblatt Bros. Inc., 23 WH Cases 756 (1978).

   Respondent asserts that the allegations that Jason Lee's hours and times violated Regulation 3 is erroneous as he is exempted from this particular regulation under the Act. His assertion is based on the fact that Jason Lee is Mary Lee's son, she was the manager of the El Camino Subway store during the period of his alleged illegal employment and she, in fact, employed him. 20 C.F.R. §570.2(a)(2) provides a "parental exemption", which exempts the Act's minimum age requirement for "the employment by a parent of his own child,...." Subpart G of the regulations set forth General Statements of Interpretation of the Child Labor Provisions of the Act. Under Subpart G of 20 C.F.R. §570.126, the "parental exemption" is further defined. In this subsection, it states that this exemption applies only "in those case where the child is exclusively employed by his parent,...[t]hus, where a child assists his father in performing work for the latter's employer and the child is considered to be employed by both his father and his father's employer, the parental exemption would not be applicable." 20 C.F.R. Subpart G §570.126. Such is the case here because as manager of the El Camino store, Mary Lee employed her son, Jason, to work in that store. However, Mary Lee's employer, Respondent, is ultimately responsible because Jason is an employee at one of Respondent's Subway facilities and it is Respondent that signs his payroll check. Accordingly, the parental exemption does not apply. Because there is no dispute that Jason's work hours violated Regulation 3 in that he worked past 7 pm and more than 3 hours on a school day, I find that Respondent violated Regulation 3 with regard to Jason Lee.

   The remaining inquiry is whether the alleged violations occurred.

Hazardous Occupation Order 10: Operating, Dismantling and Cleaning Meat Slicer

   I find substantiated the allegations that both K. Bert and M. Wilkins, (while under the age of 16), and both J.

Stewart and C. Galinski (while age 16) operated, dismantled and cleaned the electric meat slicer, in violation of Hazardous Occupation 10 (HO 10) during their respective periods of employment. Accordingly, Respondent is liable for violations pertaining to HO 10 under the Act. These four individuals testified credibly and their testimony was corroborative regarding the allegation that they all used the electric meat slicer, had never been told not to use it and had never seen a sign posted in the store prohibiting individuals under age 18 from using it. Moreover K. Bert's mother testified credibly and supported the allegation that K. Bert had used the slicer and that she, herself, had never seen a sign prohibiting such use by individuals under age 18.

   In contrast, the testimony of Respondent's wife and father that no one under the age of 18 used the meat slicer is not as credible because on cross-examination, they responded that they were not aware of the ages of the employees. Moreover, Respondent's father testified that he thought under age meant that individuals under age 16 could not use certain equipment. Jason Lee's testimony that he had not witnessed anyone under age 18 using the slicer is outweighed by the testimony of the other employees. Moreover, Respondent's father allegedly opened the store by slicing the meats and vegetables and would return to the store if more slicing was required. However, Mary Lee, the manager of the store, testified that she would open the store by slicing the meats and vegetables and would return to the store if more slicing was required, as it was only a block or two from her house. Jason Lee, Mary Lee's son, however, stated that if they ran out of sliced pastrami, they would just not offer a sandwich using pastrami for the rest of the day. Therefore, out of all the witnesses, I find the testimony of K. Bert, M. Wilkins, J. Stewart, C. Galinski and K. Bert's mother to be more credible on the fact that they used to electric slicer on occasion, were never told not to use it and that there were no signs prohibiting such use.

Regulation 3-- Occupation: Operating Power Operated Equipment

   I find, for the same reasons stated above, that K. Bert, while age 15, did in fact operate the electric meat

slicer in violation of Regulation 3 - Occupation: Operating Power Operated Equipment, between 3/11/92 and 4/1/92.

Regulation 3-- Hours/times Violation (working past 7 pm, more than 3 school days, and/or more than 3 hours on a school day):

   I find substantiated the allegations that K. Bert and M. Wilkins, while age 15, worked past 7 pm, more than 3 school days, and/or more than 3 hours on a school day, in violation of Regulation 3 - Hours Violation. Both testified credibly, as did K. Bert's mother regarding her daughter closing the shop, often by herself, at times much later than 7 pm. Moreover, no evidence was presented to refute these allegations.

Child Labor Record keeping

   Respondent was initially charged with 16 violations for failing to maintain the requisite records for the minors he employed. Although Respondent subsequently remitted records for 11 of these individuals, 5 remain unaccounted for. Respondent contends that they have maintained them and if these 5 are unaccounted for it is only due to his manager's (Mary Lee) error in throwing them out. However, it is ultimately the Respondent that is responsible for maintaining these records and he has been unable to find these last 5 records. Accordingly, as there is no dispute that records for 5 minor employees of his are missing, he was properly cited and assessed civil money penalties for these violations, albeit he is only liable for five violations (5).

Failure To Assure Child Labor Compliance

   Respondent's citation and assessed civil money penalties are proper here as the evidence indicates that he did not take appropriate measures, especially after the first investigation in which he was informed of the child labor laws, to ensure his managers and employees would comply with the child labor provisions. He may have, as Mary Lee testified, informed his managers and his family members what was required, but

apparently, he did not follow-up to ensure the law was being followed. Based upon the credible testimony, the managers, if so informed by Respondent, did not take it seriously enough to inform the employees either verbally or in a training manual. On conflicting evidence I find that there were no signs informing the employees of the child labor laws. Also, there is no evidence of any disciplinary action to assure compliance. Accordingly, I find the citation for this failure and the assessed civil money penalty to be proper.

Factor of 2 Multiplier

   Ms. Noel testified credibly regarding her lack of discretion in assessing penalties. She also sufficiently explained why a 2.0 factor is appropriate in this case. The most compelling of these reasons is the undisputed findings of the prior investigation, which resulted in Respondent paying civil money penalties for violating hours/times Regulation 3 at three of his stores, two of which are involved in the instant matter. I find that the use of the factor 2 multiplier is appropriate for all violations Respondent is liable for and, therefore, this factor was properly assessed by the investigator.

Respondent was cited for the following violations (listed by type of violation):

Name           date of birth (age)  period of alleged illegal employment
T. Allanach*   1/19/73 (17)         4/1/90-12/31/90
K. Bert        7/30/76 (15)         3/11/92-4/1/92
D. Gold*       10/3/74 (16)         11/1/90-1/1/91
C. Galinski    11/21/73 (16)        3/1/90-6/30/90
T. Perkins     8/6/74 (16)          11/5/90-4/1/92
D. Ponce*      3/6/75 (16)          6/1/91-8/31/91
J. Stewart     10/5/73 (16)         4/1/90-11/15/91
M. Wilkins     3/2/76 (15)          8/1/91-4/1/92

Regulation 3 (See 29 C.F.R. Ch. V, Subpart C, §570.31 ff). Hours/times Violation (working

Name        Date of Birth     Pd. Of Alleged Illegal Employment
K. Bert     7/30/76 (15)      3/11/92-4/1/92
M. Wilkins  3/2/76 (15)       8/1/91-4/1/92
J. Lee      12/30/76 (14)     6/12/91-4/1/92

Name        Date of Birth (age)    Pd. Of Alleged Illegal Employment
K. Bert     7/30/76 (15)           3/11/92-4/1/92

   Additionally, Respondent was cited for sixteen (16) violations for failing to possess a Record Date of Birth for the following minors: T. Allanach,* C. Barrett, S. Bournoville, M. Dion, D. Gold,* C. Galinski, L. Hengle, S. Hutton, T. Perkins,* D. Ponce,* A. Pond, J. Schmidt, T. Smith, J. Stewart, J. Thompson, B. Wood. (* - See "Excluded evidence," p. 3, above.)

   The violations cited in the foregoing tables result in the assessment of civil money penalties as follows:

1. Employment in violation of Child Labor Reg. 3-- Hours/Time Standards.    A. 14 years of age - 1 violation (J. Lee) at $450/violation, x 2.0 factor = $ 900    B. 15 years of age - 2 violations (K. Bert, M. Wilkins) at $400/viol.     x 2.0 factor = 1,600

2. Employment in violation of Child Labor Reg. 3: Occupational Standards.    A. 15 years of age - 1 violation (K. Bert) at $600/viol. x 2.0 factor = 1,200

3. Underage employment in hazardous occupation.    A. Under 16 years of age - 2 violations (K. Bert, M. Wilkins) at     $1500/viol. x 2.0 factor = 6,000    B. 16 years of age - 5 violations (D. Gold,* C. Galinski, T. Perkins*,     D. Ponce,* J. Stewart) at $1200/viol. x 2.0 factor = 12,000    C. 17 years of age - 1 violation (T. Allanach*) at     $1000/viol. x 2.0 factor = 2,000

   As noted above, p. 3, under "Excluded evidence," the violations charged respecting Allanach, Gold, and Ponce were dismissed; the violations regarding Perkins were apparently also dismissed, referred to by counsel as "one individual in Oroville" (TR 146), reducing item 3 B above by $7,200 and item 3 C by $2,000, for a reduction of $9,200, leaving $17,250 to be assessed against Respondent as civil money penalties.

   IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a civil money penalty of $17,250 is assessed against IMEX ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation d.b.a. SUBWAY SANDWICHES AND SALADS and MEHDI HAZEGHAZAM, individually; MEHDI HAZEGHAZAM and MANQUCHEHR BIGLARI individually and as partners d.b.a. SUBWAY SANDWICHES AND SALADS; and MEHDI HAZEGHAZAM, d.b.a. SUBWAY SANDWICHES AND SALADS.

      Thomas Schneider
      Administrative Law Judge