Previous Story
Employer, worker fined for sponsorship scheme
|
Posted on Apr 01 2005
The Department of Labor has fined an employer and a nonresident worker separately for engaging in an illegal sponsorship scheme.
Employer Karen Ann D. Alla was ordered to pay $2,000 for entering into a deceptive contract and encouraging worker Neshell G. Ancheta to pay the processing fees for her labor permit.
Ancheta, meanwhile, was fined $500 for deviating from the requirements of the labor statutes and regulations. She will not be allowed to transfer to a new employer until the fine is settled.
The labor order stemmed from a wage claim filed by Ancheta against Alla two years ago.
In an administrative order, Labor hearing officer Herbert D. Soll related that Ancheta transferred to Alla’s employment on Aug. 2, 2002.
At the hearing, Ancheta cited reasons for gaining employment with Alla. “She sought legitimate employment for the bulk of the contract, but she also desired to avoid work at the beginning of the period because she was expecting give birth to a child within the first part of the permit period,” Soll said.
Alla had her own motives in submitting the application to hire Ancheta.
“She sought to keep open the period in which to replace a nonresident worker in order to employ a relative at little or no actual payment of salary. She agreed to submit the application if [Ancheta] would pay the filing fee, costs of securing medical clearance and bonding,” Soll said.
Ancheta paid all of the fees contrary to a labor law placing this obligation on the employer.
After giving birth, Ancheta expressed her desire to begin work as a house worker for Alla, but the latter did not allow her.
Instead, Alla pressured the worker to find a new employer, so Alla could replace her with the employer’s mother or aunt.
In response to this pressure, Ancheta filed a complaint over the permitting fees she had paid, as well as some unpaid wages.
Aside from ordering fines against both parties, Soll dismissed Ancheta’s claims. “In view of the tainted objectives of both parties, the complainant shall not recover the fees that should have been paid by respondent by or any amount of wages. The contractual relationship between the parties become void due to their mutual fraudulent intent,” he said.
