By Vir B. Lumicao
 |
| The Labour Tribunal in Yau Ma Tei |
It must have
been the most stressful hearing Labour Tribunal presiding officer David Chan had
ever held.
After three unexpected breaks
and a few nerve-wracking moments, Chan finally got a female employer
from the mainland to settle two of six claims by the Filipina maid she
dismissed.
The claims awarded
initially to Joenalyn Mallorca were for arrears in wages totaling $1,824.37 and
airline ticket worth $1,300.
But this is just the beginning. Mallorca will see more of her former employer, Ng Me Shuen,
when her four other claims totaling $8,707.33 are tried on Feb. 2 next year.
Aside from her
unpaid wages and return air ticket, Mallorca had claimed for one month’s salary
in lieu of notice, annual leave pay, food allowance and damages.
She said Ng
fired her on Sept 15, after just three months of working for the employer.
When Chan asked
Ng why she did not want to pay the claims, she appeared to have difficulty
understanding the question.
Ng’s husband tried
to speak for her, but Chan chided him, saying he could not participate in the
discussions. When the husband butted in again, Chan warned him: “You are not a
party to the case. You are allowed to come to the court and listen, but you
must not take part in the discussions. If there is something she (Ng) doesn’t
understand then she must ask me.”
Ng complained
she could not understand the Cantonese of her court interpreter, prompting Chan
to call for a break until a Putonghua interpreter was found.
When the
hearing resumed, the employer interrupted Chan, her interpreter or the claimant
a few times that she was rebuked by the presiding officer.
Ng refused to
pay the helper one month’s salary in lieu of notice and $100 food allowance, and said she would seek legal aid.
“No, you’re not
allowed to get legal aid in this tribunal,” Chan said.
Ng then brought
up an incident when she and her daughter had allegedly suffered from scalp
irritation and dizziness from a shampoo that might have been “contaminated” by the
helper.
She said she
called the police and four or five officers came but refused to take up the
case, and instead told her to find a laboratory and have the shampoo tested by
a chemist.
Ng said she did
so but no laboratory agreed to do the test, so she threw away the shampoo
bottle, adding “anyway, the helper said sorry”.
Chan asked Ng
repeatedly if the shampoo incident was the reason she dismissed Mallorca, and the
employer replied there were other reasons, like the towel and clothes the
helper washed still had soap bubbles.
Ng said
Mallorca had wanted to be fired so she kept doing things that irritated her.
Chan replied
that if it were a trap, she had fallen into it by terminating the helper, and
then refusing to pay her claims.
The presiding
officer then asked Mallorca why she was seeking
damages and the maid said it was for breach of trust.
Chan also asked
about the Filipina’s claim that Ng had slapped her and the maid said that the
shampoo was the reason.
At this point Ng
interrupted Mallorca’s statement, causing Chan to rebuke her” “Again, Madam,
this is a court. This is not a restaurant or a market. Please don’t interrupt
the claimant anymore.”
The presiding
officer eventually asked the two reach a settlement, otherwise the case would
go to trial. But they only agreed on the settlement of the two claims, so the
rest of would have to be tried at the next hearing.
Outside the
courtroom, Ng’s husband approached Mallorca and said: “I must tell you. If you
think you can get anymore money from her, you’re wasting you time. She won’t
give you (any).”
Then the couple
walked away. 
