Torres takes issue with Labor’s filing of suit for workers

The filing of a complaint by the Labor director on behalf of some employees of Starlite and Stardust Night Clubs against the club owners while under the representation of a government lawyer is unlawful, according to former Attorney General Robert T. Torres.

Torres said that an assistant attorney general and the Labor director went over and beyond the statutory authority of the Attorney General’s Office under the Nonresident Workers Act by continuously engaging in a series of conduct amounting to legal representation of the complaining employees in a civil dispute against their employers and alleged agents.

“This ‘shotgun’ approach, given the fact that there is one small group of complainants, cannot be permitted and was clearly prohibited by the CNMI Supreme Court,” said Torres, who is counsel for respondents David Atalig and his wife Corazon Atalig, and Star Four Corp. that owns the two nightclubs.

In a motion to dismiss the Labor case, Torres said the Labor director, represented by an assistant attorney general, issued on April 12, 2006 a notice of violation against the respondents.

Torres said the genesis of the complaint is an original complaint by a former employee that was filed in February 2006. The employee’s complaint was filed with Labor for wage and hour violations and unlawful confinement.

Consequently, Labor conducted an investigation of the respondents based on that complaint, Torres said. That investigation, he said, led to the filing of the Labor director’s complaint, with the assistance of an assistant attorney general.

“Now the Director of Labor has brought a complaint for violations, on behalf of the original complaint, to collect wages and for other violations on behalf of the group of employees of respondents,” Torres pointed out.

The lawyer said that under the Nonresident Workers Act, the statutory jurisdiction of the AGO is strictly set forth in a statute. “The scope of authority is one of enforcement of the Act rather than acting as an advocate on behalf of a private party to wit: an employee,” Torres said.

Indeed, he pointed out, the Labor director is seeking to collect wages against respondents for the original complaint of February 2006 and other complainants.

“The problem is that there is a group of complaining employees and non-complaining employees, all of whom and on behalf of, the Director of Labor, through counsel, has inserted himself,” he said.

Torres cited that the CNMI Supreme Court observed in a recent case that the AGO should not represent private parties as its ordinary duties is limited to acting as counsel to departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.

The Labor’s hearing office, he said, must give effect and impose the limits of the director’s authority to be an advocate for a party complainant.

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, Torres said, the Nonresident Workers Act clearly forbids the AGO from representing private parties even in a labor case, unless it is conformance with the statute.

Torres added that because the complaint was initiated by the AGO in the wrong forum and for the wrong purpose, it is incumbent on Labor and the hearing office to dismiss the complaint against his clients.