Labor: Garment factory not liable to worker’s 16-week unemployment
Saipan Tribune, Micronesia
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The Department of Labor has found that a garment factory was not liable to a worker who complained that the company caused her to be unemployed for 16 weeks.
Labor administrative hearing officer Barry Hirshbein ruled that complainant Shi Lin Cao has not proved that Kyungseung (Saipan) Inc. was the proximate cause of her injury and has not proven that she missed any opportunity for employment as a result.
The fact is that, according to Labor records, Cao’s work permit expired even before it was issued, Hirshbein pointed out.
“Labor’s delay in processing and delay in delivery of the permit were the primary cause of the confusion in this case,†said the hearing officer as he denied to award monetary damages to Cao.
Hirshbein, however, allowed Cao to seek a new employer within 45 days.
Labor records show that on Jan. 6, 2014, the complainant received a non-renewal notice indicating an expiration date of Feb. 6, 2014.
With the assistance of the Federal Ombudsman’s Office, Cao learned that her permit had actually expired on Oct. 19, 2014.
The worker never received her entry permit. She filed a Labor complaint on April 4, 2014 seeking transfer and other appropriate relief.
Kyungseung (Saipan) Inc. bought a former Rifu garment factory. Cao had been an employee of that factory. Kyungseung began the transition to new ownership in March 2014.
On May 31, 2014 Kyungseung submitted to Labor a consensual transfer to employ Cao.
Complainant denied she signed the transfer. She, however, believed that Kyungseung was her employer.
The company submitted a number of documents in support of their good faith belief that
Cao’s expiration date was on Feb. 6, 2014.
Labor records show that complainant’s expiration date with her employer in 2003 was Jan. 26 of each year.
Complainant’s transfer application to Rifu was signed on Feb. 5, 2004 and submitted to Labor on Feb. 6, 2004.
Kyungseung believed that this would be the new expiration date.
In his order, Hirshbein said according to Labor records, the transfer application was not approved until Oct. 16, 2014 and the permit was not issued until Oct. 19, 2014.
“There was an almost two-year delay in processing and this was the first time that Oct. 16 was established as an expiration date,†Hirshbein said.
He said the respondent company did not learn about the changed expiration date until after Cao had already stopped working for them.
Respondent submitted the consensual transfer application on June 16, 2014. On Oct. 16, 2014, the Labor director approved an amendment to the contract, naming Kyungseung as the employer of record.
That permit was not issued until Oct. 19, 2014. Respondent testified that they did not receive that permit or learn of the expiration date until after complainant had already stopped working.
Respondent argued that they believed, in good faith, that the new expiration date for contract was to be Feb. 6, 2014.
“All of their actions are consistent with that belief. Likewise, complainant must have believed that she had the right to continue to work for respondent up to that date,†Hirshbein said.
Cao argued that because of respondent’s actions she could not transfer to a new employer.
Complainant had a period of unemployment from Feb. 6 through the present and sought wages for those 16 weeks.
