‘Labor won’t tolerate sponsorship schemes’

Sponsorship arrangements are illegal attempts to circumvent the CNMI’s immigration laws and will not be tolerated, according to the Department of Labor.

“Humanitarian concerns are no substitute for the rule of law,” said Labor administrative hearing officer Maya B. Kara in her order barring an employer, Maria Agulto, from hiring nonresident workers for a period of one year.

Kara barred Agulto from hiring alien workers after failing to provide work to complainant-employee, Francisco M. Dizon, a construction worker.

The hearing officer also penalized Agulto for entering into a fraudulent employer-employee relationship (sponsorship), and for failure to cure multiple deficiencies in her work permit application for Dizon.

Kara cautioned the employer to refrain from future attempts at entering into “sponsorship” arrangements with alien workers.

The hearing officer ordered Agulto to pay $1,000, but she suspended the sanction for three years provided that the employer complies with all applicable CNMI labor laws and regulations.

The employer was also required to pay Dizon $244 for 10 days of work performed.

Kara directed the department to carefully review future labor permit applications by Agulto to ensure that the proposed employment “is not a mere screen for an illegal sponsorship arrangement.”

Labor records on Rota show that Dizon had been in the CNMI since 1981 as a nonresident worker on successive contracts of employment with various construction companies.

Dizon’s last employer was Juan B. Quitugua.

On Feb. 28, 2002, Agulto submitted an application for a permit expiration transfer on behalf of Dizon, seeking to employ him as a mason.

On that day, Dizon was conditionally allowed to start working immediately for Agulto

The application was late and incomplete. Agulto paid a $300 late fee and was advised to submit the missing documentation such as a copy of her business license, bank certification and proof of project.

Agulto never submitted the missing documentation. The deficiencies in the permit were never cured and no permit was issued.

Dizon only worked for Agulto for 10 days, for which he was not compensated. For the balance of the contract period, Agulto was either unable or unwilling to provide work for Dizon.

Based on Dizon’s complaint, Labor issued in October 2005 a determination finding Agulto in violation of the labor laws and regulations.

The violations include failure to correct the deficiencies in the application, failure to pay employee for work done, and failure to provide employee with work in violation of the employment contract.

In her order, Kara said that, although Dizon alleged that he performed additional work for Agulto on weekends, there was no credible evidence presented that this work was performed for pay. Rather it appeared as an additional aspect of the parties’ apparent sponsorship arrangement, Kara said.

Kara cited that, based on Agulto’s testimony that Dizon “was a friend of the family and I was just trying to help him out,” coupled with her inability to give him work, she finds there is a strong appearance of a “sponsorship” arrangement, which is prohibited under CNMI labor law and policy.