 |
| Pinay DH got lucky after she revealed her employer's illegal acts in the Tribunal |
By Vir B. Lumicao
A Filipina domestic worker won a $5,000 settlement from her
employer after she told the Labour Tribunal that she was made to stay and work
in the flat of the employer’s mother whenever the couple who hired her went on
a holiday.
Hui Ni Sha, who had a counterclaim for wages in lieu of
notice against Leah Espiritu for allegedly leaving her house on Apr 29, was also
found to have dismissed her.
Espiritu had claimed only a total of $3,594.20 against Hui for
allegedly dismissing her without notice on May 3.
 |
| Call us! |
Presiding Officer David Chum said the employer was willing
to pay Espiritu’s claim of $1,721.40 in arrears in wages, $100 food and travel
allowance, and $1,772.80 for an air ticket, items that were unsettled in their
previous meeting at the Tribunal.
Chum said Hui was also refunding $500 of a $700 deduction
she made from Espiritu’s salary for what she called an advanced holiday on Apr
23-27, when she and her husband were on a holiday.
But the Filipina declared that on those days, she was made
to work in the house of Hui’s mother, as was the practice each time the couple
went on holiday.
Chum said that was a breach of Espiritu’s condition of stay.
He reminded her that if she was taken to a place other then her employer’s
address to work there, that would be a criminal offense.
Going to the main issue, Espiritu said she was fired without
written notice on May 3, while Hui accused her of leaving the house without
notice on Apr 29.
“I told her she must complete her contract. She just gave me
$700 for the holiday she took. She left the house on Apr 29 and I never saw her
again,” the employer said.
Chum told Hui that he has an Immigration document, a notice
of termination that the employer signed on May 3 stating that the helper left
on May 29.
Hui’s husband, in the gallery butted in and gave the woman
instructions in Putonghua. Chum paused and scolded the man, warning him that if
he interrupted again, he would charge him with contempt of court. The man kept
silent.
The presiding officer then warned Hui she could be charged
criminally for misrepresentation for putting the last working day as May 29. Hui
said she had already written Immigration about that on May 3 but did not give
the Tribunal a copy.
Chum said the fact was Hui fired her maid on Apr 29 and put
the date as May 3. By doing so, Hui was allowing the maid to work illegally in
the underground market. He said if the case proceeds to trial, the problem would
come out it could reach Immigration.
He advised the two parties to discuss and resolve their
dispute. After several minutes of discussion, Hui agreed to pay her former maid
a total of $5,000, more than what she was claiming.
---
I-try mo ito, Kabayan: Kung interesado kang ma-contact ang mga advertiser namin dito, pindutin lang ang kanilang ad, at lalabas ang auto-dialer. Pindutin ulit upang tumawag. Hindi na kailangang pindutin ang mga numero.
