Lenard Andogage, Mohammed Mir Al Amin, Abdul Hannan, Susan Habulan, Imelda Marquez, and Eden Olie Pacay, through attorney Stephen C. Woodruff, is asking the court to set a briefing schedule to process this appeal, that Labor be ordered to mediate, hear and decide the plaintiffs’ claims and enforce any award, award of breach of contract damages, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs from Top Fashion, and other relief considered as just and proper.
Top Fashion ceased production operations on July 2, 2007 but continued its existence after the factory’s closure.
The plaintiffs were retained for one-year for the purpose of securing the factory’s property.
Top Fashion, however, breached the contract, the plaintiffs stated.
Hannan was hired on July 25, 2007 and his last day of work was Dec. 27, 2007.
Andogage and Al Amin were renewed on May 2, 2007 after being told that their work would continue even after the factory’s closure.
On Feb. 12, 2008, an administrative hearing officer of Labor entered an order for transfer relief for the plaintiffs without prior notice to them.
The order cancelled, effective immediately, all permit applications pending for the plaintiffs.
On Feb. 27, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed to the secretary of Labor, saying they had unresolved monetary claims against Top Fashion for breach of contract.
They said their employment was extended beyond the date of the factory closure and that the breach of contract was unexcused.
The acting secretary of Labor denied the appeal of the plaintiffs on July 16, 2008 and affirmed the Feb. 12 order of the hearing officer.
According to the plaintiffs, the statements of the acting secretary of Labor and the secretary’s order on appeal are contrary to applicable laws and regulations.
The complaint stated that “the plaintiffs through their notice of appeal, has placed their claims before [the department] and the acting secretary of Labor has refused to allow them to be heard.”
The plaintiffs are asking for a judicial review, saying that the actions of Labor were made without observance of the procedures mandated by applicable laws.
Further, the Feb. 12 action of Labor “was unsupported by substantial evidence and rendered without notice to the plaintiffs.”
