Labor decides on complaint—four years after

Four years after the complaint was filed, the Department of Labor has ruled in favor of an alien worker who was terminated by his employer after only three weeks of employment.

In an Oct. 22 administrative order, Labor hearing officer Herbert D. Soll ordered Yun’s Corp. to pay $807 to its former employee, Manuel C. Dacuma. Soll also allowed the worker to seek a new employer and gave him 45 days to have that employer file a permit application for him with the department.

Records showed that Dacuma transferred his employment to Yun’s Corp. in August 2000. He began working on Sept. 1, 2000 and was given notice of termination 20 days later. Dacuma filed a labor complaint shortly thereafter.

A mediation hearing was held in 2000, when Yun’s Corp. tendered a check that would have, in part, compensated Dacuma for wages due. However, that check was not accepted.

The complaint was not scheduled for hearing until Oct. 15, 2004. Present in the hearing Dacuma and his attorney, Stephen Woodruff; Yun Corp.’s manager Richard Mendiola and attorney Joe Arriola; Labor investigator Felix Ayuyu Jr.; and witnesses Adoracion H. Opena and Dinah Travina.

“An unfortunately long period of time has passed between the filing of the complaint and the hearing and that has somewhat obscured some of the essential facts that are at issue,” hearing officer Soll noted.

Nevertheless, Soll maintained that evidence showed that the letter of termination, which alleged that the worker was “always late,” was lawful.

However, he was quick to add that while the employer was legally justified in its dismissal of the worker, Yun’s Corp. should not have given Dacuma such “harsh and tactless treatment.”

“The daily pressure of competition in the commercial world does not justify the sudden termination of an employee without counseling or advance warning. Such labor practices can lead to serious consequences if repeated,” Soll said.

Further, the employer admitted during the hearing that it failed to give required notice of termination and owed certain salary payments to Dacuma. Soll ordered Yun’s Corp. to pay such wages.

In addition, Yun’s Corp. admitted that Dacuma had paid for his medical examination and health certificate. Soll noted that both expenses are the responsibility of the employer and must be reimbursed.

The hearing officer, however, decided not to sanction the employer for its conduct.

“A long period of time has elapsed since this dispute arose and there is now the presence of a local manager and an attorney who may influence the attitude of the corporate decision maker,” Soll said.