Massage parlor ordered probed

The Department of Labor hearing office has recommended a probe into the operations of a massage parlor whose two managers appear to reside outside the CNMI.

Hearing officer Jerry Cody referred Sabana Massage to the Division of Labor for investigation, even as he allowed one of its former employees to transfer to a new employer despite violating CNMI labor rules and regulations.

Cody’s administrative order stemmed from the Labor director’s decision to deny the permit transfer application that Sabana Massage filed on June 23, 2003 for worker Cui Hui Lan.

The Labor director issued the denial after the company failed to correct the deficiencies in its application. The missing documents were a job vacancy announcement, business establishment inspection, living quarters affidavit, and the employer’s extra copies of documents.

“This employer failed to correct deficiencies even while it continued to employ [11 nonresident workers, including two managers],” Cody noted. “Moreover, serious questions remain unanswered about the management of this business. For example, assuming it is true that both company ‘managers’ reside off the CNMI, who in fact manages this business on a day-to-day basis? I find that good cause exists for the director to investigate this employer’s managerial operations.”

At the hearing of the appeal, it was found that Cui actually stopped working at the massage parlor in September 2003. She testified that she left work because she was ill for a period of time and that the manager told her it was “okay” for her to stop working.

From September 2003 until May 2004, Cui remained in her sister’s home on Saipan and never approached the department to change her work status. In about May 2004, Cui tried to transfer to a new employer but found that her application with Sabana had been denied. This prompted her to appeal the denial and ask for transfer relief.

Cui said that she never tried to approach the department about her status because she did not know how to follow up on it and assumed that she could transfer one year after her consensual transfer had been issued.

Cody said Cui’s testimony established that both she and the company disregarded labor rules and regulations. He noted, however, that Cui cooperated with the department and offered honest testimony at the hearing.

“Her conduct was more the result of ignorance rather than a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law… In this case, the appropriate action is a monetary penalty,” Cody said.