Worker peppered with irrelevant questions?

An alien worker who complained against her employer for alleged illegal food and housing deduction but was ordered to depart the CNMI has asked the Department of Labor Secretary to review the tape of the proceedings on how the hearing officer allegedly peppered her with irrelevant questions.

In her appeal to Labor Secretary Gil M. San Nicolas, Yonglan Quan cited that, during the hearing, Labor administrative hearing officer Barry Hirshbein bombarded her with numerous questions concerning her motivation in filing her complaint, the timing of filing her complaint, her renewal contracts, the importance of overtime work to her, and other matters.

Quan suggested that San Nicolas listen to the tape of the proceeding and determine whether such questioning is consistent with the spirit of a provision in the Alien Labor Rules and Regulations that provides that “the administrative hearing officer shall give added accommodation to parties proceeding pro se to ensure that no party is prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served.”

In any case, the worker said, the questions asked were totally irrelevant to the real issues in her case: whether respondent Winners Corp. illegally deducted food and housing expenses from her checks without providing such benefits to her; and whether she gave statutory notice of her intent to arrange her own food and housing.

Last September, Hirshbein ruled that Quan shall take nothing from her complaint against Winners Corp. and must depart the Commonwealth.

He pointed out that Quan did not file a complaint with Labor in a timely manner and that her excuse for not filing is not legitimate and contradicts her testimony at the hearing.

Labor records show that Quan began working for Winners Corp. in 1999 and renewed her contract annually through 2005. She ceased working for the corporation and her work permit expired on July 9, 2006.

On June 13, 2006, Quan filed the complaint requesting reimbursement for two years of deductions for food and housing.

The complainant testified that in May 2004 she made a written request to respondent to be allowed to self-provide her food and housing. She continued to live outside and provide her own food but she did not have any further communication with Winners Corp. on the subject.

In 2004 and 2005, Quan signed a renewal contract with the same terms as the prior years. That contract included deduction for food and housing.

In his administrative order, Hirshbein noted that these statements are not reconcilable.

With the assistance of the Federal Ombudsman’s Office, Quan appealed. She asserted that Winners Corp. is prohibited by law from deducting anything from her paycheck unless those deductions comply with the law.

Clearly, she said, the deductions from her checks from June 2004 until July 2006 did not comply with the statute or the regulation.

Quan asked San Nicolas to order Winners Corp. to reimburse her for all illegal deductions plus liquidated damages.

Quan urged San Nicolas to sanction the corporation for the illegal deductions and refer the case to the Attorney General’s Office for possible criminal prosecution, and to permanently bar the company from hiring anymore alien workers.

Quan said the deductions taken were violations of the law which prohibits deductions for room and board unless the “expenses incurred by the employer for room and board are no more than the expenses actually incurred by the employer in providing such benefits.”

Quan said she did not waive her right to seek reimbursement for respondent’s illegal deductions by agreeing to renew her contract.

She pointed out that she filed her complaint with Labor on June 13, 2006, while Winners was still taking illegal deductions from her checks.

“How much more timely does appellant need to be? In any case, the order does not cite to any statute, regulation, court decision or administrative order specifying the applicable time period for pursuing her claim,” Quan said.

The worker added that allowing the order to stand will have a chilling effect on the constitutional right of nonresident workers to file complaints with Labor to address their legitimate grievances and enforce their rights under the law.