Previous Story
Conflicting testimonies lead to denial of labor application
|
Posted on Aug 18 2005
A Department of Labor hearing officer affirmed the denial of an employment application after the employer and the worker provided conflicting testimonies why they failed to correct the deficiencies in the application.
Hearing officer Jerry Cody, however, gave nonresident worker Shen De Fang 45 days, or until Sept. 29, to find a new employer.
“I agree that granting this transfer request is appropriate, given the employee’s request, the department’s lack of opposition, and the difficulty in discerning which testimony—the employer’s or the worker’s testimony—is more credible,” Cody said.
“Ms. Shen is reminded that this process of transfer is discretionary—not mandatory—and that she is unlikely to be granted further transfer relief if her next attempt to transfer is unsuccessful,” he added.
Cody also advised Shen that she would have to depart the CNMI voluntarily at her last employer’s expense if she failed to find a suitable employer within the 45-day period. Otherwise, her name would be forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office for possible deportation.
Shen previously worked for a garment factory. On Feb.15, 2005, employer Francisco R. Rasa, owner of a karaoke club in Garapan, filed an application to employ her as a waitress.
But the application was incomplete; it was missing a job vacancy announcement. When the Processing Section received no corrective documents by early May 2005, it issued a denial of the application.
Rasa produced a certified JVA weeks after the denial was issued. However, he noted that he had asked the Labor director to cancel the application in early May based on the worker’s request.
He testified that Shen told him in late April 2005 that she had found another job and no longer wanted to work for him.
However, Shen denied Rasa’s testimony and said that she had never informed him that she wanted to cancel her application. “She pointed out that she later approached the department on July 5, 2005 to inquire about the status of the application and that this conduct was inconsistent with any alleged desire on her part to cancel the application,” Cody noted.
