Employer refuses settlement with FDH

Labour Tribunal By Pp20120912 (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

A Chinese employer on Aug. 17 refused to pay $103,000 or settle with a Filipino domestic helper who sued him before the Labour Tribunal.

Despite warnings from Principal Presiding Officer Ho Wai-yang that refusal to settle would mean a number of inconveniences and that he would be unable to collect any money from Filipino domestic helper A. Elbanbuena from his counter-claim, employer H.Y. Yuen said he wanted “justice”.

Judge Ho said the parties would be spending time, effort, and money in preparation for the hearings.

“The other matter is obviously the dispute of facts alleged are so extreme that there can only be one accepted version of events,” said Judge Ho.

“In other words, under litigation, it’s either a party wins everything or loses everything. There is no middle ground,” she added.

The judge also warned Elbanbuena that while she was acquitted of theft by a Kowloon Court, the bar was much lower in a civil litigation.

After giving these warnings, Judge Ho then gave the two parties time to think about settling the cases.

The two parties stepped outside the court room, but did not talk with one another.

When the hearing of the case resumed at about one hour later, Yuen said he would not settle.

Asked why by Judge Ho, he said he was doing so “for justice”.

“What do you ultimately want from this litigation?” said Judge Ho.

Yuen then said he found unreasonable the claims by Elbanbuena.

Judge Ho then said settling or negotiations did not mean that the employer would have to pay everything the domestic worker sought.

Judge Ho then ordered Yuen to pay Elbanbuena $1,242.97 for her airfare and allowance, but all her other claims would be settled by another Labour Tribunal judge.

A mention of the claim and the counter-claim was scheduled on Oct. 12 in Court 9.

On July 18, Elbanbuena was acquitted of theft by a Kowloon Court.

Deputy Magistrate Vennie Chiu Wai-yee ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant stole the money from her employer.

The judge noted that despite the employer’s statement that the domestic worker took the $500 in September 2016, she continued to employ her and only terminated the contract two months after.