By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Superior Court says it lacks the jurisdiction to review an administrative order from the Department of Labor in a labor case.
Judge David A. Wiseman granted the motion of Labor and the real parties in interest, Yun’s Corp. and Yoon Ho Jin, to dismiss the complaint of Manuel Dacuma.
Dacuma sought the reversal of Labor’s administrative order denying his motion for reconsideration in connection with the labor case filed against his former employer, Yun’s Corp., and its president and general manager Yoon Ho Jin.
Wiseman dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
He said the court generally agrees with Yun Corp.’s presentation of the issues.
According to Wiseman, the main issue is whether the court has jurisdiction to review Labor’s decisions.
He said for clarification purposes, issues should be presented more specifically “in terms of whether the secretary of Labor had the authority to consider a motion for reconsideration when neither the statutory scheme for labor proceedings nor the labor regulations provide for reconsideration by the secretary of his own decisions; whether the secretary’s decision to entertain Dacuma’s motion for reconsideration tolled the 15-day period in which to appeal the matter to the Superior Court; and whether the secretary’s actions deprived Dacuma of his due process rights when he considered Dacuma’s pro se appeal while Dacuma’s lawyer was not present on Saipan.”
Wiseman said the secretary of Labor had no authority to reconsider his affirmation of the hearing officer’s decision because Dacuma failed to file his appeal in a timely manner.
The judge said Dacuma lost any right to a rehearing by the Labor secretary when he failed to file anything until nearly five months had elapsed, and he also failed to file for reconsideration before the 15-day time limit for appeal to the Superior Court elapsed.
Wiseman said notwithstanding the Labor secretary’s lack of authority to hear Dacuma’s request for reconsideration, the secretary’s consideration of Dacuma’s request and subsequent rejection failed to toll the time period limiting the time to appeal to the Superior Court.
Lastly, the judge said the Labor secretary’s consideration and rejection of Dacuma’s administrative appeal while his attorney was absent from Saipan did not deprive Dacuma of his due process.
Dacuma filed a labor case against his employer and filed a claim with the secretary of Labor under the Non-Resident Workers Act of 2000. The matter was heard on Oct. 15, 2004 and an administrative order was issued on Oct. 22, 2004 in favor of Dacuma.
Although the Department of Labor granted Dacuma $807 in back pay and expenses and granted him transfer relief, he appealed the decision and claimed that some aspects of that order were unsatisfactory and short of his rights and that the administrative order was issued in the absence of his counsel, Stephen C. Woodruff.
Woodruff left the island for a two-month trip from Oct. 22 to Dec. 12, 2004.
Dacuma appealed to the Labor secretary on Nov. 2, 2004, citing the absence of his counsel.
The Labor secretary affirmed the hearing officer’s decision on Dec. 1, 2004.
Dacuma was given 15 days to appeal the decision. But, instead of timely appealing the secretary’s decision, Dacuma waited until April 28, 2005, approximately five months after the secretary’s decision was published, to file his motion for reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration was denied by the secretary on Oct. 19, 2005.
Dacuma filed his appeal on Nov. 3, 2005, 15 days after the secretary’s rejection of his motion for reconsideration.
Yun’s Corp., through attorney Richard W. Pierce, argued that the Labor secretary did not have the authority to hear a motion to reconsider under the circumstances, and that the court has no jurisdiction to review either the affirmation of the hearing officer’s decision or the secretary’s rejection of Dacuma’s reconsideration request.
The Department of Labor, through Assistant Attorney General Dorothy Hill, filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Dacuma argued that the Labor secretary violated his due process rights by reviewing and rejecting his appeal of the hearing officer’s decision when the secretary was aware that Dacuma’s lawyer was off-island.
Dacuma said Yun’s Corp. argument was flawed and the hearing officer’s decision was deficient on its face and cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim.