Previous Story
Employer referred for possible probe
|
Posted on Jul 23 2004
The Department of Labor wants an employer investigated for her alleged negligence that left an alien worker without work for a year.
This came after Labor hearing officer Jerry Cody affirmed the denial of the permit renewal application submitted by Menchu Grayer for nonresident worker Luvisminda V. Alim.
Records showed that Alim was previously employed by William Hart as a sewer on a nonresident permit that expired on July 4 of last year. On Aug. 18, 2003, Grayer filed an application to employ Alim as a sewer in a dress shop that Grayer was planning to open.
In Jan. 2004, the Division of Labor issued a deficiency notice, as the application was missing several required items, including a certified job vacancy announcement, an approved business establishment inspection form, a self-arranged housing form, and a properly filled out employer’s agreement.
Grayer never corrected the deficiencies, prompting the division to deny the application. Grayer appealed the decision but failed to appear at the hearing.
Alim testified that Grayer informed her recently that she no longer intends to open a dress shop because she has decided to conduct the business in the Philippines.
In his administrative order, Cody granted Alim’s request to be allowed to transfer to a new employer. “[Alim] does not appear to be at fault in this matter that gave rise to the denial. [She] should be granted transfer relief and given 45 days to secure a transfer employer who shall file a transfer application on her behalf within the 45-day period,” Cody said.
He also noted that the transfer relief granted Alim is a final opportunity for her to find a suitable, valid employer.
As for Grayer, Cody noted that her decision not to pursue her business—and her failure to inform the department of the fact—deprived Alim of an entire year of employment.
“Whether such conduct, however deplorable, violated the Nonresident Workers Act so as to subject the employer to sanctions, remains an open question,” Cody said. “The department should review the facts to determine whether this prospective employer should be charged with a violation for this negligent misconduct.”
