Cases in the Philippines all dismissed

Vinluan said that though they have gained victory in their fight in the US, in the Philippines this is not the case.

He told this reporter that he and the Avalon 10 had filed the following cases in the Philippines:

1) POEA (Philippine Overseas Employment Agency) cases – violation of POEA rules and regulations, such as misrepresentation in the recruitment process and contract substitution;

2) NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) cases – money claims and constructive dismissal, which were assigned to the Executive Labor Arbiter; and

3) DoJ (Department of Justice) cases – complaints for illegal recruitment against SRA, Francis Luyun and his officers/employees and primary principal.

“After the POEA issued a preventive suspension order against Sentosa Recruitment Agency, Senator Charles Schumer wrote POEA Administrator Rosalinda Baldoz, then Labor Secretary Pat Sto. Tomas and President (Gloria Macapagal-)Arroyo. It was after these letters were received by government officials that then-Presidential Chief of Staff, Sec. Michael Defensor, called up NY Consul-General (Cecilia) Rebong and then POEA Administrator (Rosalinda) Baldoz. Soon thereafter, the preventive suspension order was lifted,” Vinluan said, recalling what happened more than two years ago.

Furthermore, he said, the POEA dismissed the first batch of complaints as it found that SRA allegedly had a “recruitment agreement” with Sentosa Care, LLC. Sentosa Care, LLC is a healthcare management company and has several affiliated nursing homes. The POEA ruled that inasmuch as all the affiliates of Sentosa Care, LLC are “identified and listed in the official website of Sentosa Recruitment Agency and Sentosa Care, LLC, Filipino nurses were thus notified that they were going to work for the “healthcare group.” In essence, it ruled that it was all right for SRA to deploy any of the nurses to any of the affiliates of Sentosa Care, LLC.

“In our appeal to the Labor Secretary, we argued that the records of the case show no recruitment agreement between Sentosa Recruitment Agency and Sentosa Care, LLC. In fact, Sentosa Care, LLC is not even one of the accredited principals of Sentosa Recruitment Agency. The nurses individually signed employment contracts with a particular principal (nursing home) of Sentosa Recruitment Agency. Thus, they expected to work for that particular nursing home principal of Sentosa Recruitment Agency. As correctly found by the NY Appellate Division, the nurses were instead made agency nurses of an employment agency,” the lawyer explained.

He even said he has doubts as to whether Labor Secretary Marianito Roque (former chief of the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration or OWWA), or Baldoz (former head of the POEA) or even the new POEA Administrator Jennifer J. Manalili could produce any copy of a supposed recruitment agreement between SRA and Sentosa Care, LLC when asked to do so.

“I am pretty sure they cannot produce one (not unless they had already manufactured one). Whether they are able to produce one or not, ask them further: at what stage of the proceeding was that recruitment agreement ever submitted or filed? For as far as we know, we never received a copy of said recruitment agreement (if ever SRA submitted one) during the proceedings,” he said.

He even told this reporter to compare POEA’s factual findings with the findings made by the NY Appellate Division.

“The Appellate Division found that ‘… each of the nurses signed an employment contract with the specific nursing homes for which they had been selected to work…’ When the nurses arrived in the United States, they learned that they would be working for an employment agency instead of the specific nursing homes they had signed contracts with,” stressed Vinluan.

“The Executive Labor Arbiter, on the other hand, made even more-aggravating findings when she ruled that the nurses, by resigning, pre-terminated their employment contracts, and that the nurses in fact had an obligation to give two-weeks notice. We likewise appealed to the NLRC (the Commission), and argued that the employment contracts were indeed breached, not by the nurses, but by the contracting nursing home employers. The nursing home principals of Sentosa Recruitment Agency did not provide employment to any of the nurses. The nurses found employment with the nursing employment agency. There being no employment agreement between the nurses and the employment agency, their relationship was an at-will employment. The NY Appellate Division correctly ruled that the nurses’ employment was ‘employment at will’,” he further explained.

Moreover, Vinluan said, the Office of the Labor Secretary and the NLRC are presently sitting on the appeals.

“In fact, there are three other batches of complaints filed before the POEA adjudications office which are likewise in limbo. It really seems that the ordinary, not politically-connected Filipino, cannot secure justice in his own country. And to think that the government takes pride in our overseas foreign workers as the new heroes of the country,” he said.

He said that they plan to litigate the civil cases pending in New York and the federal discrimination cases they filed in Washington, D.C.

“Insofar as the Philippine front is concerned, the nurses’ parents and relatives, together with their support groups led by Migrante International, Alliance of Health Workers, Health Alliance for Democracy and Gabriela Women’s Party, will decide how they can bring to the attention of the people the fact that our own government has looked the other way, refusing to see the truth, as clearly made manifest by the recent decision by the NY Appellate Division, which contained factual findings that contradict those of Philippine government agencies,” Vinluan said. ((Bulatlat.com))

 Save as PDF