By Liberty Dones
Reporter
The Department of Labor and Immigration hearing office has ruled that the defacto employer of murdered guest worker Jose Dela Rosa should bear the full cost of embalming and repatriation of his body, following findings that the company had unlawfully employed the victim.
DOLI said that Han Ho Corporation, dba Ace Poker, began employing the worker without a permit.
Dela Rosa was murdered while working as cashier at Ace Poker on May 26, 2002.
Records showed that the company shouldered the repatriation expenses totaling $5,485. It is also required to pay medical expenses amounting to over $500.
In a settlement agreement earlier signed between the company and the department, which charged Ace poker with violating the Nonresident Workers Act, the de-facto employer agreed to pay for the expenses but asked that it be reimbursed for half of the cost by the employer of record, Luis and Maria Crisostomo.
Dela Rosa previously worked for the Crisostomos as maintenance repairer with a work permit set to expire on May 20, 2002.
Dela Rosa left the Crisostomos in late February after receiving a non-renewal notice from them.
Sometime in March or April 2002, DOLI said, Dela Rosa began working for Ace Poker as cashier with no permit.
The Crisostomos had argued that they should not be held responsible for repatriation because the employee had effectively transferred, and was working for a new employer, albeit illegally, at the time of his death.
In his decision, Cody favored the position of the previous employer.
“I conclude that repatriation costs should not be apportioned between the parties. Instead the defacto employer should bear the full costs,” Cody said, adding that the company violated a cardinal provision of the law, which holds that nonresidents may only be employed lawfully by means of an authorization or permit issued by DOLI.
“As de-facto employer, Han Ho Corp. paid his wages and acted in other respects as if it were his lawful employer. The corporation received the benefits of the employment relationship and therefore, should also bear the burdens of that relationship,” Cody said.
Although it was found that the Crisostomos did not properly terminate the worker, their conduct when compared with the clear violation committed by the defacto employer does not justify imposing liability on the Crisostomos, he added.
To hold otherwise, in effect, “place the defacto employer in a better position than if it has lawfully hired the nonresident worker,” Cody said.
Equity demands that those employers who act as defacto employers by hiring nonresident workers illegally should bear the full burden of such employment, as if they were in place of the employer of record,” Cody further said.
Home | Weather | Advertising | Classifieds | Subscription | Contact
Us | About Us | Archives
©2006 Saipan Tribune. All Rights Reserved
