Lawyer questions IPI, MCC settlement

A lawyer based in New York is questioning why Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC came out with a statement saying it was “pleased” that a settlement agreement has been reached between their contracted employer and workers illegally recruited to construct the casino-resort.

A lawyer who refused to be named, but has been working with Saipan Tribune on several occasions regarding the illegal worker situation said that neither IPI nor the workers could “really comment on the settlement.”

According to a statement from IPI last Monday, their former main contractor, MCC International, has reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor on the fate of the remaining six illegal workers.

IPI also specified that they were not privy to the details pertaining to the agreement, however they said they are “pleased” with the outcome.

On the statement, the lawyer said in an email that neither parties—the workers nor IPI—could really comment on the settlement since details were not present.

“…It is unclear how IPI can be ‘pleased’ by a settlement about which they do not know the actual terms. And, if they want to know the terms, what is the reason that they cannot get these answers from MCC?”

Saipan Tribune learned last Friday evening that the China Labor Bulletin, a non-governmental Chinese worker advocate group based in Hong Kong, sent a letter to IPI, urging the company to take care of the compensation owed the remaining six workers on Saipan. The letter was the second sent to Carman Chow of IPI from another Chinese worker advocacy group called China Labor Watch, which is based in New York.

IPI sent the statement in response to the letter from China Labor Bulletin.

According to the lawyer, one of the workers, named Li Qiang, reportedly did not receive his payment yet.

“It is not accurate to say that the USDOL agreement settles our claims. Nobody has told us the actual terms of the settlement, let alone shown us a copy of the settlement agreement, and we have not received a penny at this point,” Li reportedly said.

The lawyer added that any settlement reached between USDOL and the employer, even though it was technically on behalf of the workers, is only between USDOL and the employer.

“The USDOL does not consult with the workers before it decides whether or not to sign the agreement,” said the lawyer. He added that some USDOL settlements are for less than what the workers are actually owed.

“…In some cases, the employer might say that it does not have enough money, or the USDOL might fear that it will be hard to collect money from the employer because its assets are overseas, and therefore USDOL will accept less than the full amount owed to each worker,” he said.

Li reportedly asked the lawyer if they would still be compensated for the recruitment fees, their backwages, and for liquidated damages.

“The workers do not know the answers to any of these questions, Apparently, IPI also does not know the answers. Therefore, neither party can really comment on the settlement,” he said.