NMI Labor claims jurisdiction over case filed by US citizen
Monday, 27 September 2010 00:00 By Junhan B. Todeno - Reporter
E-mail Print

THE administrative hearing office of the Department of Labor can adjudicate cases involving U.S. citizen workers.

Hearing Officer Jerry Cody said the jurisdiction of his office is determined by the Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007, or Public Law 15-108, as amended by Public Law 17-1.

He said P.L. 17-1 specifically addresses permanent residents and citizens in its “employment preference” section that deals with an employer’s obligation to hire local residents or U.S. citizens.

Section 4528(a) of P.L. 15-108 states that a citizen, CNMI permanent resident, or U.S. permanent resident who is qualified for a job, may make a claim for damages if an employer has not met the law’s requirements; the employer rejects an application for the job without just cause; or the employer hires a person who is not a citizen, CNMI, permanent resident, or U.S. permanent resident for the job.

Under the law’s Section 4528(b), Cody said the hearing office has original jurisdiction to resolve all claims filed under that section.

“Thus, it is clear that the hearing office has jurisdiction to adjudicate a U.S. citizen’s claim that an employer has violated CNMI ‘preference’ laws,” he said.

Attorney Joey P. San Nicolas, who represented Saipan Triple Star Recycling Inc., asked Labor to dismiss the complaint filed by its employee Antonio A. Reyes, citing the hearing office’s lack of jurisdiction.

In a brief filed with Labor, the employer argued that a “plain reading of the public law reveals that the administrative hearing office does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate questions related to employee’s termination.”

But Cody, in his administrative order dated Sept. 22, denied the motion to dismiss filed by Saipan Triple Star Recycling Inc.

A review of Public Law 17-1, he said, reveals that it contains a specific section that confers broad jurisdiction to the hearing office.

Section 4942(a) states that “[t]he Administrative Hearing Office shall have original jurisdiction to resolve all actions involving alleged violations of the labor and wage laws of the commonwealth,” he said.

He said this broad jurisdictional language, which first appeared in P.L. 15-108, “represents a significant change from the limited jurisdiction” of the Nonresident Workers Act that had been in effect for 10 years prior to the enactment of P.L. 15-108.

Cody admitted that P.L. 17-1 is not a model of clarity with respect to the jurisdictional issue, saying that claims of citizens or permanent residents are not specifically mentioned except in sections dealing with “employment preference issue.”

But, he added, the fact that the broad jurisdictional language was added by the Legislature when it replaced the Nonresident Workers Act with P.L. 15-108, suggested that the Legislature intended to expand the hearing office’s jurisdiction from the former limited jurisdiction of the NWA to complaints filed by U.S. citizens or residents.

According to Cody, “It makes sense to allow local residents or citizens to utilize the services of the hearing office that operates on an expedited simplified format with relaxed rules of evidence and an absence of legal formalities.”

He added, “This administrative court is designed to enable a worker to bring a complaint regarding wages or working conditions without having to hire legal counsel.”

He said given that many local U.S. citizens or residents make the same wages as foreign national workers, they should be allowed to utilize the department’s administrative system to adjudicate their labor complaints.

Cody said the labor case of Reyes has been referred to the department’s enforcement section for investigation.