ONE is a female undergraduate trying to earn some extra pocket money by giving tuition.

The other, a male undergraduate from the same university, runs a tuition agency which hires undergraduates like her.

But the business relationship between peers soon escalated into a bitter dispute.

A month ago, the tutor, Miss Fang, 21, a Nanyang Technological University undergraduate, filed a police report alleging harassment.

She claimed she was threatened, verbally abused and harassed with numerous phone calls by the manager of the tuition agency she had signed up with.

But the agency manager also claimed that he was threatened and harassed.

The argument began when the agency manager called Miss Fang on 11 Apr to tell her that she had been sacked after her first English lesson to a Secondary 3 student the day before.

Her teaching had been unsatisfactory to the parent, he told her.

COMMISSION

He then asked Miss Fang to pay a commission charge of $84.

The company's terms and conditions - spelt out in its website - state that if the client terminates the assignment prematurely due to the tutor's fault, the tutor would 'bear the full commission charge'.

This is 50 per cent of the first month's tuition fee.

In this case, that amount Miss Fang would have to pay is $84.

Tutors are typically paid monthly by the client, but usually, 50 per cent of their first month's pay for that client go to the agency as commission.

Miss Fang's agency states that possible reasons for termination, in the event that it's the tutor's fault, include being chronically late, not attending the lesson without a valid reason, and not knowing how to teach.

While Miss Fang admitted that she was late for the lesson by half an hour - she blamed it on bad traffic conditions and weather - she said she gave the student an hour's worth of tuition.

She was supposed to teach 11/2 hrs, but she claimed that the child's parent wanted to end the lesson early.

Miss Fang, who has worked with the agency for only three months and has one client before this second one came along, is upset.

She said: 'Why should I pay this (commission) amount, when I'm not even being paid for the lesson I gave?'

She had noted the termination clause before signing with the agency, but she didn't expect to be fired.

She added that the agency had promised to let her teach General Paper to a third client.

The phone call from the agency manager informing her that she was sacked led to a heated argument.

Miss Fang alleged that the manager threatened and hurled vulgarities at her.

'He told me, 'I know where you stay, okay. I have your address, okay. You don't try to play punk with me',' she claimed.

The next day, Miss Fang said she called the parent to ask why she was given the boot. She claimed that the parent told her it was because she was inexperienced.

CURSES START FLYING

Miss Fang then told the manager that she didn't owe him $84, because she was dismissed for reasons other than those stated in the terms and conditions.

But the conversation again turned into another argument with him cursing and swearing over the phone, she alleged.

Later that day, she went to a police station in Sengkang to make a report. The police confirmed the report.

The agency, which has about 4,000 undergraduate tutors, was set up last December.

Tutors register themselves on the company's website and are informed about assignments through SMS, phone calls or e-mail, without face-to-face contact for most cases.

The manager said that his agency has had problems with tutors not turning up for the first lesson or not knowing how to teach.

He admitted that curse words were exchanged by both parties over the phone, but denied harassing Miss Fang.

He claimed that she threatened him too: 'She told me she knows my full name... and she told me, 'You wait and see'. I did not know what she was implying and felt very threatened by that sentence.'

Only tuition centres are registered

WHO governs tuition agencies, and what recourse do consumers and tutors have in disputes against them?

The Ministry of Education (MOE) requires tuition centres to be registered as schools under the Education Act.

In order to register, such centres need to meet building and fire safety requirements, and have qualified teachers, appropriate facilities and a school management committee comprising of at least one member.

An MOE spokesman said that when there are feedback or complaints against tuition centres, MOE will investigate and take action where warranted.

But tuition agencies, on the other hand, like the one in Miss Fang's case, are not under MOE's jurisdiction as they are registered companies or businesses and do not operate as schools.

Hence, if there are disputes, apart from trying to settle the matter with the vendor directly, consumers can seek help from the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case).

Case's executive director Seah Seng Choon said the number of complaints against tuition agencies has risen in recent years.

There have been 13 consumer complaints in 2006 and 16 cases last year. So far this year, there have been two cases of complaints against tuition agencies.

This story was first published in The New Paper on May 10, 2008.