By Daisy CL Mandap
 |
| Fewer workers are signing up for refund claims because of the POEA referral |
Several Filipino migrant groups are set to stage an online
protest from 1pm to 2pm this Sunday, Feb 28, accusing the Philippine Overseas Labor Office of
reneging on its duty to help OFWs seeking a refund of illegal fees collected
from them by recruitment agencies in the Philippines.
The groups, led by United Filipinos in Hong Kong
(Unifil-Migrante-HK) are particularly angry that Polo has been forwarding
claims to the Philippine Overseas Administration Office in Manila without even
informing the concerned workers.
This was despite an agreement reached by Filipino community
leaders with Labor Attache Melchor Dizon on Dec 6 last year, that all claims
will be heard in Polo, with the Hong Kong counterpart of the Philippine
agencies acting as respondent.
It is only when no settlement is reached during a
conciliation with the Hong Kong agency that the case is supposed to be
forwarded to POEA for further action.
“This is causing distress and anxiety to many migrant
domestic workers whose hard-earned money unscrupulously taken by agencies could
have gone to their families or used to buy necessities here in Hong Kong,” said
a statement issued by Unifil.
 |
| POEA letter from telling HK claimants their cases have been referred to them |
How would they be able to follow up on their cases? They
have to assign a member of the family or a friend to represent them in their
cases in the Philippines. But they cannot be represented, as they do not have
time to do it. This is why they filed their cases here so that they will be
able to see it through. This is a source of consternation and major
disappointment to overly-burdened OFWs.”
News of the instant referral of cases to POEA has flooded a
Facebook page, Training Fee Refund Hong Kong, where claimants share posts about
their concerns and experiences dealing with Polo.
Nearly all of those who shared receiving notices of hearings
from POEA said they filed their claims with Polo, and were not consulted or
advised that their cases would be referred to Manila directly.
The news has turned off many would-be claimants from pursuing
their cases. On Sunday last week, a sign-up desk set up by Unifil-Migrante on
Chater Road recorded just about 20 Filipino migrant workers filling up forms to
file claims. This was less than half of the number recorded in previous
Sundays.
According to Unifil chairperson Dolores Balladares-Pelaez,
about 2,000 FMWs have already filed claims, but only a handful had been called
to Polo for a conciliation meeting with their Hong Kong agencies.
And among those who managed to settle their claim with their
agencies, only a fraction of what they paid in illegal fees to their
recruitment agencies in the Philippines had been given back to them. Many said
they were given only the equivalent of Php5,000, after paying between Php30,000
to Php50,000 to their Philippine recruiter.
Only one has reported being given back Php10,000 of the
Php31,000 she paid – and that was only because she still had an existing NC2
certificate from Tesda (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority),
meaning she should have been exempted from undergoing training all over again
in the first place.
The measly settlement has prompted a call from Marites Palma
of Social Justice for Migrant Workers, one of those pushing for the refund, to
urge claimants not to accept such a small amount from their Hong Kong agencies.
 |
| Training fee claimants have been crowding Polo on Sundays |
Another leader of the refund campaign, Eman Villanueva of
Bayan Muna Hong Kong and Macau, told Hong Kong-based claimants not to give in
to suggestions that they should file their cases directly with POEA.
Villanueva said workers will lose out in such a case because
they will have to file individual claims, weakening the campaign for agencies
to be held accountable for charging illegal fees. He also said it would be
difficult for a Hong Kong-based worker to pursue a claim in the Philippines as
the complainant must personally appear, or designate a representative, during
hearings before the POEA.
Further, he said: “Mismong si Labatt Dizon ang nagsabi na tatanggapin ang
filing ng claims at gagawin ang mediation sa POLO. Kung hindi nya ito tutuparin
at basta na lamang ipo-forward ang mga claims sa POEA, dapat singilin at
papanagutin si Labatt Dizon.”
(Labatt Dizon himself said Polo
would accept claims and act as mediator. If he won’t abide by this, and just forward
the claims to POEA, we should hold Labatt Dizon accountable).
There are also a lot of
organizations, institutions and individuals helping claimants in Hong Kong, so
it is much easier for cases to be resolved here, Villanueva added.
While the turn of events has
dismayed most of those pursuing claims in Hong Kong, this is not the first time
Polo had washed its hands off the illegal collection of fees by recruitment
agencies, said Unifil-Migrante. In 2013, a similar thing happened, when thousands
of illegal fee claims were all passed on to POEA, said the group.
The deluge in claims started on
Nov 22 last year, after Dizon said during a meeting with a group of community leaders
at the Consulate that Filipino workers deployed abroad should not be compelled
to attend training, and pay for it. Employers who require training should pay
for its cost, he said.
This was followed by a meeting with
another group led by Balladares-Pelaez where Dizon said 170 OFWs had already
filed claims, which Polo would hear through conciliation meetings between the
workers and their agencies.
It was only if conciliation had failed
that the case would be endorsed to POEA for further action, he said.
Dizon also said claims for
agency fees paid within the past three years could be filed with Polo for
conciliation. But an extra month allowance should be given for Polo to schedule
the conciliation, and then forward to POEA within the required period if no
settlement is reached.
 |
| Several groups have been helping workers pursue refund claims |
In its statement, Unifil also
hit out at Polo for allegedly being selective in handing out the Dole Akap
financial assistance of US$100 to workers whose work has been adversely
affected by the pandemic, and not extending the application period long enough for
all qualified recipients to file a claim.
Polo was also criticized for
being selective in accepting workers to its shelter, and in not extending help
to those who recently arrived in Hong Kong and are under hotel quarantine.
“They are actually performing subpar to non-government
institutions (which) have their own shelters here in Hong Kong and (are) helping
as many people as they can. It has obviously delegated the task to these
institutions when it should be the government's responsibility to shelter OFWs,”
said the Unifil statement.
“Especially during the pandemic, there are at least a
hundred migrant domestic workers seeking shelter every month in Hong Kong.”
