Menu
CB Employment Agencies Review of Agensi Pekerjaan Zns Wawasan Recruiting
Agensi Pekerjaan Zns Wawasan Recruiting

Agensi Pekerjaan Zns Wawasan Recruiting review: Misrepresentation: Forgery of signature and Extortion 1

R
Author of the review
11:21 am EDT
Verified customer This complaint was posted by a verified customer. Learn more
Featured review
This review was chosen algorithmically as the most valued customer feedback.

Complaint against agensi pekerjaan zns wawasan recruiting sdn bhd-maid agency

I am writing to make a complaint against agensi pekerjaan zns wawasan recruiting sdn bhd, a maid agency, run by mr hari kharan muthiah and assisted by ms cecilia llabora, who have engaged into wrong doings.

I have engaged the following maid agency and its subsidiary for a domestic worker of philippines origin whose contact I obtained through the star newspaper, sometime mid last year, 2011.

Agensi pekerjaan zns wawasan recruiting sdn bhd (768597-w)
No. 62-2b, jalan raya barat
Pusat perniagaan raya barat
41100 klang
Selangor darul ehsan
(jtk licence no. 2164/kdn no. (s) imm. 101/hq/857/4 (750)

Hsr maju services ([protected])
50 jalan tpp 1/17
Taman perindustrian puchong
47100 puchong
Selangor darul ehsan

The agent had supplied me with the maid around 19th august 2011. Unfortunately, approximately two (2) weeks upon her stay with us, we had to request the agent to replace her due to incidents of lying and stealing. The agent and his philipino assistant, ms cecilia llabora had come over to my home to inquire into these incidents and the maid admitted her wrong doings.

The agent refused to send the domestic worker back to philippines with a threat that if I did so he will not give us a replacement maid and that under normal circumstances the agencies are allowed to transfer the maid to another employer who may be willing to hire her.

At the same time, the agent also said that the actual reason on the release form should not be stated, as that fact would make it difficult for the agency to transfer the maid who has engaged these wrong doings. I found this inappropriate and requested that our money of rm7, 950.00 be refunded but he refused. With that, I felt helpless and went with his advice not to state the reason for returning the maid on the release form.

However, upon talking to an officer at the immigration office, I was informed that I could not release the maid unless the new employer was also present at the immigration, submitting his application to hire the said maid.

I had highlighted the same to the agent and he mentioned that he could arrange for the release without me going through the hassle. He then sent me lampiran d (the release form mentioned above) for me to sign the blank form so that he could justify the release on his own at the immigration office in shah alam instead due to connections.

We had no choice at that time but for me to sign a blank lampiran d to release the maid without having to list the reasons so that the agency could place her to another employer and find us a replacement.

The agent also informed us that we will be required to pay further to replace the maid. I had requested that we should not be charged further as he was already taking our first maid and placing her with another employer at our cost for bringing her down but he refused to negotiate further.

The replacement maid arrived in kuala lumpur on 2nd march 2012 and was delivered to us on 9th march 2012.

3 weeks later, my current maid brought to my attention an alleged employment contract, between myself and her, as well as also involving the philippine agency called global care international manpower services and the local agency (mentioned above).

When I looked at the copy of the alleged employment contract provided to me by my maid, I noticed that my signature on the employment contract had been forged. I had asked the agent for the employment contract numerous times before and he had not provided me with any, stating that there is none but that the terms of employment are along the same lines with the contract agreement I signed with the agency.

The agent also originally told me that the maid should be given 1 day off a month with a salary of rm800.00 per month. Should she chooses or agrees not to take a day off, she will be paid an extra of rm50 for that day, totalling to a salary of rm850.00 per month.

We had requested that this information be added into the contract but the agent said that they do not modify their standard contract.

However, when I looked at the employment contract, the contents include additional entitlements which were never mentioned to me, nor stated in the contract between the agency and myself, or their brochure, such as below:

A) the maid will be given dental benefits
B) the maid is to be covered with life insurance
C) the maid takes a day off every week
D) the maid should be given 15 days paid leave every year (a total of 30 days in two years)

My maid had informed me that the agent and his filipino assistant had confiscated the folder of documents from her when she arrived kuala lumpur. The folder also included the original of the employment contract, a copy of which she presented to me.

I am also equally disappointed with the notary public, mr. Puspalingam krishnan of messrs puspalingam, kasmani & partners based in klang who has notarized the employment contract without the presence of me as a signatory.

I have written an email to the agency on 2nd april 2012 requesting for the original employment contract to be sent to me within 5 working days with reasonable explanation. I have also sent out an a.R. Registered mail to him requesting for the same. The agent responded by stating that he does not have the original contract and provided me with a copy which had my actual signature on it. I know for a fact that I did not sign any such employment contract, and the signature on the copy provided by the agent looks like it has been photostated from another document signed by me onto this agreement. So now, I have 2 sets of the same agreement with two different signatures, but I have not signed any of these employment contracts.

The agent is also holding my maid’s passport and refuses to hand it over to me unless I make a payment of rm693.00, being 3 weeks salary of my first maid. I find this unreasonable as the agent had transferred the 1st maid at my expense. On top of that he has demanded for an additional of rm1, 366.00 to be paid to him for getting a replacement which I have paid. Now he insists that I settle the remaining payment of rm693.00 before he could give me my current maid's passport.

Furthermore, he has forged my signature on these agreements which imposes liability on me for the additional benefits to the maid which cost me a minimum of approximately rm6200.00

I engaged the agent to provide a maid who could work, and not a maid who has a host of medical problems and needs to be taken care of herself.

Please be advised and do not engage services from mr. Hari kharan muthiah or cecilia llabora or agensi pekerjaan zns wawasan recruiting sdn bhd.

Update by RenSuk
Jun 04, 2012 1:38 am EDT

Dear Jo Swee,

I got your email on further inquiring about Agensi Pekerjaan ZNS Wawasan Recruiting. I think they may have moved their location. The name card that they gave me previously with an address was false and they had not notified the employers either if they had moved.

You should check the JTK License number (JTK 2164) to confirm that its the same company. Moreover, the corrupted people you would be dealing with at ZNS would be Hari Kharan Muthiah, Cecilia Llabora, Bella and Rose.

I do not suggest you engage them for maids as they have breached their own contract and have misrepresented me by forging my signature.

1 comments
S
S
SammiCheng
, MY
Aug 23, 2014 12:09 pm EDT
Verified customer This comment was posted by a verified customer. Learn more

Response from the Management :
The complainant engaged our services to supply a domestic helper and not a domestic slave. The protocol to engage a domestic helper from the Philippine is via an accredited agency by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agencies (POEA). The accreditation is to monitor their nationalities are managed by a license agency that will ensure the helper’s welfare and safety in the country of employment. Any workers deployed by these agencies are abused, ill-treated or non-compliance of employment contract, the respective agencies are required to provide the necessary assistance and counseling with respect to the law. Should these agencies fail to carry out their responsibilities, their accreditation with the POEA may be suspended or revoked.
In order to hire a domestic helper from the Philippine, there are various documentation to comply as follows:
1. Agency agreement between the prospective employer and the agency outlining the do’s and don’ts.
2. Malaysia’s employment contract between the employer and the worker.
3. Philippine’s employment contract between the employer and the worker.
The employer is mandatory to read and sign all the above stated documents before we can commence the application process. Should the employer is not agreeable to any of the terms stated in the above documents than we will not proceed with the application.
The chronology of events as follows:
1. The first domestic helper named Narissa arrived on 19/08/11 and was handed over to the complainant on 22/08/11.
2. Three weeks later, we received a call from the complainant complaining that the helper took an adapter to charge her mp3 phone without her consent. The complaint from the worker was that she had to work in 2 homes and going to bed very late and getting up early with minimum rest.
3. It was decided at that point by the employer, helper and the agency to release the helper due to her unhappiness and also being exploited by the employer to utilize her services in 2 homes. The employer will be provided a replacement helper at a very basic cost as stipulated in the contract subject to her signing a transfer form and was adhered too.
Note: When an employer exploits her employee, the agency can deny her of her rights under the contract for a replacement worker. In this regard, we caution the complainant not to repeat the offence prior processing her replacement helper.
4. We subsequently provided the complainant a replacement helper at the same terms of employment as the first helper however the complainant refused to settle the 3 weeks wages of the first helper after exploiting to the maximum.
5. Several months later, the complainant file a case against my company at the consumer court stating that we gave a replacement maid who is unfit, the employment contract being forged and she is totally unaware of the terms stated in the employment contract even after engaging a second helper. Doesn’t it sound odd that the complaint against the first helper was only taking possession of the adapter without the complainant consent and nothing about the employment contract?
6. Subsequently, she complained to 2 government agencies that monitors all maid agencies, to the police about forgery and the press.
7. We responded to all the relevant agencies that called us for an enquiry and one agency reprimanded the complainant for not settling the salary of the first worker.
8. In the consumer court, we were ask to refund RM 1321.50 after taking into consideration the total cost of hiring both the helper. However she was not able to prove any wrong doings by the agency for which her total claim of RM 19, 000.00 was denied. She was not happy with the decision of the Consumer court and appealed to the high court citing unhappiness with the presiding court president. The case was dismissed in the High court.
9. With regards to the accusation of forgery, we responded to the police enquiry and submitted the relevant document as required and no further enquiry till to date.
Note: Two agencies that oversee all maid agencies performance and conduct cleared our agency from any misconduct and wrong doing.
Complainant Complain
The agency refused to send the helper back with the threat that the agency will not provide a replace helper.
Agency Reply
It is prerequisite for an employer who is seeking replacement to hand over the current maid to the agency. It is the right of the employee to seek employment via the agency for a suitable and considerate employer.
Note: First helper Narisa has renewed her contract with a second helper for the 3rd consecutive year.

Complainant Complain
The agent inform us that we need to pay further for a replacement maid
Agency Reply
The additional charges for a replacement maid are stipulated in the agency contract. However, we gave an additional discount of RM 200.00 to the complainant.
Complainant Complain
The replacement helper is medically unfit.
Agency Reply
The helper was sent for mandatory health screening program and she was declared fit to work as a domestic helper by Fomema.
Complainant Complain
I was unaware of the terms and condition of the employment contract and it was forged.
Agency Reply
The complainant signed 2 employment contracts, one for the first helper and another for the second. Both contracts carry the same terms and condition. The complainant only has an issue with the contract of the second maid? Why?

Summary
In Malaysia, there is handful of employers similar to the complainant who has total disregard for the welfare of their helpers and treat them like slaves. Due to their irresponsible attitude towards their foreign helpers, Indonesia and Cambodia has declared a moratorium on hiring helpers from this country. A large number of responsible employers are now affected by this moratorium due to this minority group.
The role of the agency is not only sourcing and supplying of foreign helpers but also to act as guardian of this workers in the country of employment. When we response to any SOS call from the helpers, some employers accuse the agency with all kinds of slanders similar to what the complainant accuse us of forgery and extortion without any basis. They try to tarnish the image and credibility by publishing in website without verifying the authenticity of the complaint.
In the case of the complainant, two helpers were provided however both helpers terminated the contract prematurely. It clearly indicates that the fault lies with the complainant and not the agency or the helpers. The complainant deflected the whole issue by accusing the agency and the employee of the agency.
It is obvious that the complainant is an educated person judging by the fact the she has painstakingly written to whoever she can think off. Do you think she would engage a helper from the agency without going through the details and terms of hiring? The complainant sent abusive and vulgar emails to our office threatening to shut our business.
On the part of the agency, we fulfilled our contractual obligation by providing 2 helpers without imposing additional charges other than what stated in the contract.
In conclusion, the complainant is full of lies without any credibility, inhuman, selfish and without any regards to basic human values. All those agencies reading this article please be aware of such customers who will abuse their helpers and accuse the agencies for their short comings.

Trending companies