Letters Sent to E.A. Markley, September 19, 1935

Sept. 19, 1935. Mr. E. A. Markley, %Collins & Corbin, #1 Exchange Pl., Jersey City, N.J. Re: Burricelli VS. U.S. Radium Corp. Dear Mr. Markley: In response to your request of September 17th, enclos- ing request from Mr. Emerglick for photostatic copies of en- ployment record of the above compalinant; we are herewith en- closing two photostatic copies of same. As you will note, the employment card in this case is very indefinite and gives little or no information. In review- ing our weekly payroll sheets for the period when Burricelli was employed by us, 1 find that she appeared on our records com- mencing dovember 14, 1918, end her nome continuously appeared thereon during 1919-1920, up until the second or third week of January, 1921. Her name again appears for the poriod ending May llth, 1921, and continues thereon until the early part of June of the same year. As you have been previoualy advised, we have no records prior to the week ending November 14, 1918, and our records are aissing for the period January 14, 1921 to May 11, 1921. We there- fore note that the above case was on our records as far back as any that we have, and we may assume, I believe, that her employment was continuous, with the exception of a few scattered weeks, until the early part of June, 1921. Ber weekly salary during 1919 and the early part of 1920 was from $12.00 to $15.00 01° $16.00 per week, and gradually tapered off thereafter, until the last two weeks of her employment, which were the first two waeks in January, when she received $5.00 and $3.77. Very truly yours, HBBarker: DK Vice-President enc.