However, Mario O. Besana, who still has an ongoing criminal case, may be allowed to remain in the CNMI depending on the order of the Superior Court.
The Department of Labor denied his request for transfer relief and his employer, Salvador Arceo, proprietor of Hair.Comb in Garapan, is not obligated to pay pre-termination and post-termination wages as sought by Besana in his complaint.
Under Section L of the employment contract, an employee’s “neglect, careless performance or non-performance” may be grounds for termination for cause, Hearing Officer Jerry Cody said.
“Certainly, an act of theft or deliberate embezzlement, as occurred here, constitutes sufficient grounds for termination for cause,” Cody added.
On Feb. 25, 2008, Besana filed a labor complaint against Arceo for wrongful termination, alleging that his employer breached the contract by terminating him and by failing to pay his full wage earned.
In his complaint, Besana claimed pre-termination unpaid wages and post-termination loss of wages for failure to provide work.
Besana worked at the hair saloon from Sept. 14, 2007 until Jan. 14, 2009 when he was terminated.
The termination letter was issued on Jan. 17, 2008.
At the hearing, Besana admitted collecting $1,210 in rent payment that belonged to his employer.
But Besana used the money for his personal needs.
Arceo then filed a criminal complaint against his worker.
Cody said the termination was proper and Besana’s claim for post-termination damages was rejected by Labor.
Besana claimed that he received almost no wages for the period he worked for Arceo.
Besana claimed he could have earned $3,819 in regular and overtime work.
But Arceo and Besana’s co-worker, Bernie Tarrobal, told Labor that the employer didn’t fail to pay Besana’s wages.
Tarrobal testified that he and Besana worked for 40 hours a week with no overtime and that the time sheets were accurate.
Labor found out that Besana prepared the time-sheets and did the computations of his salary.
“While attempting to discredit the documents, complainant gave conflicting testimony — first denying that he did the calculations, then admitting under questioning that he did so. Both the substance and demeanor of complainant’s testimony cast doubt on his credibility,” Cody said.
