In small claims No. 09-052, Kim’s Restaurant or employer Bright Kim was ordered by the court to pay employee Jocelyn Esparas the amount of $320 for the non-resident Foreign Investment Board (FIB) worker fees deductions.
Court records showed that Kim committed a breach of contract when he deduction the FIB worker’s fees from Esparas when the contract entered between the two parties only stated that the employee will only pay for permit fees.The records showed that Esperas began working for Kim in May of 2008 and from Esparas’ first pay check in June 2008 until June 2009, Kim deducted $33 toward permit fees.Kim supposedly explained to Esperas that the “permit fees” consisted of a $500 FIB nonresident worker fee and a $300 labor work permit fee that would be spread throughout the two year contract.The judgment further showed that Kim deducted an additional $41 towards another $500 FIB nonresident worker fee, stating that it was a new FIB requirement.Esperas then complained to Kim claiming that her contract did not state the deductions would be made for any FIB fees.Kim then pointed out to Esperas that the language in her contract about the permit fees covered the FIB fee.Kim then also deducted $200 from Esperas for the period of May 2008 to March 2009 the amount of $200 for food and housing deductions which he said was stated as one of the deductions to be made under the contract.As a result, Esperas ended up owing Kim $60.When the two parties brought the matter before the Labor Office, the Labor Officer made a determination that there was nothing wrong with Kim’s deduction.Esperas then sought the assistance of the Micronesian Legal Service.Senior Judge Honora Remengesau Rudimch in a 10-pade judgment stated that the term permit fees refer only to the Labor work permit fee.It also added that under the law Kim can only deducted up 50 percent of the work permit fee.As for the housing deductions, the court ruled that since Esperas is paid $250 a month, the $200 deduction for housing from Esperas salary is clearly a breach of contract. However the court said that Esperas is still liable to pay for the housing as stated in the court but because Kim also committed a breach of contract “no damages will be awarded.”The court also ruled that Kim breached Esperas contract when he established a work schedule that conflicted with Labor Rules and Regulations. Esperas is awarded time off equivalent to the number of days she worked when she was supposed to be off which is about 21 days.The court however denied Esparas claim for punitive damages, and six days claim.The court also denied Kim’s counterclaim that Esperas owe him $60 for alleged cash advances.
