‘Maid in a box’ to seek relief from ILO

Exclusive by Vir B. Lumicao

Cristine's 'box' is the one next to the window

A Filipina maid who claims to have been made to sleep in a “box” is set to go the International Labor Organization to file a landmark case challenging Hong Kong’s definition of what constitutes “suitable accommodation” for domestic workers.

Cristine L. Primne, 32, is taking this step after the High Court dismissed on Aug. 9 her application for leave to appeal a labor court’s dismissal of her claim for one month’s pay in lieu of notice against her former employer.

At the center of the dispute was whether she had the right to terminate her work contract because her employer, Wong Ka-chun, exposed her to undue risk by letting her sleep in a makeshift room on the terrace which she said looked like a doghouse.

Judge Wilson Chan decided to uphold the June 22 ruling by the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board (Mecab), saying no question of law was raised in the appeal.
Following the ruling, Primne authorized the Mission for Migrant Workers to plan the next move in her case as she had to fly back to Manila on Aug. 17 when her extended visa had run out.

Her decision to go to the ILO could set a standard for what is “suitable accommodation” for Hong Kong’s 350,000 foreign helpers, as the government stands pat on its policy against domestic workers living outside their employers’ homes.

It would also be the first time a dispute in Hong Kong over helper accommodation would be elevated to the ILO, the United Nations body that seeks to protect the rights of workers around the world.

Primne told The SUN on Aug 16 that she terminated her contract on May 3, just eight months after being hired by Wong because she felt bad about being treated like a dog.

The room she was made to sleep in was a rectangular wooden box measuring about 3”x4”x6” which had a tiny window and a door that she could enter only by crouching. But it was equipped with lighting, an air-conditioner, electric fan, mattress and cabinet.

“I could not stand inside it, I could only kneel or squat and I had only enough space to lie down. It had no ventilation so I sweated a lot and that made the flooring and the sidings moist,” she said.

If she turned on the air conditioner, the small box got too cold very quickly. And when it rained, the interior got wet if she opened the door or window even for just a bit.

The helper said she had to use a potty for her toilet needs because she was afraid to enter the house at night because of the falling objects that landed on the terrace.

Cristine consults with Mission's Edwina Antonio

Primne sought the help of the Mission, which sent a letter on Apr 13 to the Immigration Department to complain on her behalf about her living condition. After two weeks she received a reply which advised her to call the police.

She did so on May 2 and after the police visit the employer offered her three options: to share a room with the two children, sleep on the sofa, or sleep on a folding bed in the living room.

But Primne decided to leave the next day, telling her employer she was opting for constructive termination. That would have meant her employer paying her a month’s pay in lieu of notice, instead of the other way around.

Mission director Edwina Antonio said constructive termination was in order since the maid was made to sleep in a box that was no better than a doghouse, and was left in a place that exposed her to the elements and to danger from falling objects.

She said this was inhuman and violated the provision for suitable accommodation stated in the work contract.

But, “Mecab said the room was reasonable because it had privacy and was equipped with some of the amenities listed in the contract, and the High Court agreed,” lamented Antonio.

In his ruling, Judge Chan said no error of law was committed by Mecab in deciding that the employer was not liable to pay a month’s wage in lieu of notice as he was not guilty of any conduct which constituted constructive dismissal.

He said, “Provided the Board has not erred in applying the relevant legal principles, nor acted against the weight of the totality of the evidence, the conclusion it reached cannot amount to a question of law.” -