back to index

 

 

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW

 

 

 

§          1         General Provisions

 

§          2          At Will Employment

 

§          3          Independent Contractors

 

§          4          Government Employees

 

§          5          National Labor Relations Board

 

§          6          Wages

 

§          7          Workmen’s Compensation

 

 

 

§          1          General Provisions

 

 

back to top

 

           

RESERVED

 

 

§ 2       At Will Employment

 

 

A government employee with no contractual or statutory right to continued employment may be fired for any reason or even "for no reason whatever" without a denial of due process; only exception is that employee cannot be terminated for a reason that itself violates some constitutional right, such as free speech or equal protection of the laws.  U.S. Const. amdt. 14.  Banks v. American Samoa Gov't, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

 

 

If the parties to an employment contract have neither fixed a definite term of employment nor created any contractual obstacle to the right of discretionary discharge, then the contract is for employment at will and the employer may discharge the employee without incurring liability.  Palelei v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162.

 

 

The "at will" employment rule is a rule of contractual interpretation rather than a substantive right of employers; it means simply that without evidence of negotiation or agreement on duration or terms of employment, courts will assume the parties intended the contract to be terminable at will by either party.  Palelei v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162.

 

 

An employer's policy manual can give rise to contractual rights and obligations if the contents of the manual and the circumstances of its distribution suggest that it was designed to give the impression that such rights and obligations existed and thereby to elicit particular conduct on the part of employees.  Palelei v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162.

 

 

Employee handbook that strongly advised employees not to join a labor union, described a system of "progressive discipline" prior to termination, and required the employee to sign a statement that he has read the manual and understands its provisions, gave rise to contractual rights and obligations with regard to discipline and termination of employment.  Palelei v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162.

 

 

Employer's failure to use progressive discipline sanctions provided in policy manual before terminating plaintiff was not wrongful when plaintiff had apparently committed acts explicitly listed in the manual as justifying immediate dismissal.  Palelei v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162.

 

 

Under the common law, if the parties to an employment contract have neither fixed a definite term of employment nor created any contractual obstacle to the right of discretionary discharge, then the contract is for employment at will and the employer may without liability discharge the employee for any reason.  Palelei v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162, 165 (Trial Div. 1987).  Paaga v. Development Bank of Am. Samoa, 31 A.S.R.2d 152.

 

 

To defeat a party’s motion for summary judgment that an employment relationship was at-will, an opposing party must present evidence in her pleadings and supporting affidavits that, if proven at trial, would support her claim that her employment contract contained an implied or actual provision protecting her from arbitrary termination.  Paaga v. Development Bank of Am. Samoa, 31 A.S.R.2d 152.

 

 

back to top

 

 

§ 3       Independent Contractors

 

 

SEE AGENCY AND PRINCIPAL § 3(3) – BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

 

 

Explicit contract language designating a party as an independent contractor is prima facie evidence of such status.  Mulitauaopele v. Board of Trustees of ASG Employees Retirement Fund, 30 A.S.R.2d 107.

 

 

The primary question in determining whether a party is an independent contractor is who has control over the work.  Mulitauaopele v. Board of Trustees of ASG Employees Retirement Fund, 30 A.S.R.2d 107.

 

 

A secondary factor to be considered in determining whether someone is an independent contractor is the method of payment by the employer.  The fact that a person is paid a lump-sum amount for work undertaken, as compared to being compensated on an hourly basis, tends to show an independent contractor relationship.  Mulitauaopele v. Board of Trustees of ASG Employees Retirement Fund, 30 A.S.R.2d 107.

 

 

The fact that an employer does not deduct taxes from earnings is evidence of an independent contractor relationship.  Mulitauaopele v. Board of Trustees of ASG Employees Retirement Fund, 30 A.S.R.2d 107.

 

 

back to top

 

 

§ 4       Government Employees

 

 

Eligibility to claim retirement credit does not extend eligibility to those who could have resumed employment within the two-year period but for the availability of a promised government job.  The statutory language is clear that eligibility is limited to those who resume employment within two years.  A.S.C.A § 7.1430(f).  Mulitauaopele v. Board of Trustees of ASG Employees Retirement Fund, 30 A.S.R.2d 107.

 

 

back to top

 

 

§ 5       National Labor Relations Board

 

 

Assertion of jurisdiction by the National Labor Relations Board over complaints charging unfair labor practices by employers in American Samoa precludes territorial court from exercising jurisdiction over such complaints.  29 U.S.C. § 164(c).  Su'a v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 4 A.S.R.2d 135.

 

 

The distance between American Samoa and the NLRB regional office in San Francisco, and consequent expense and inconvenience of bringing complaints there, were not "interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility" that territorial court could exercise jurisdiction over complaints that would otherwise be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.  Su'a v. Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 4 A.S.R.2d 135.

 

 

Assertion of jurisdiction by the National Labor Relations Board over alleged unfair labor practices preempts territorial court jurisdiction over such claims.  29 U.S.C. § 164(c).  Su`a v. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 7 A.S.R.2d 58.

 

 

While interests "deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility" may give rise to exceptions to preemption of territorial court jurisdiction by the National Labor Relations Board, the expense and inconvenience to a local resident who must file a complaint at the National Labor Relations Board offices in San Francisco does not constitute such an interest.  Su`a v. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 7 A.S.R.2d 58.

 

 

Termination of employment due to union activity is perhaps the most obvious example of conduct which is federally preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and over which territorial court has no jurisdiction.  Su`a v. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 7 A.S.R.2d 58.

 

 

back to top

 

 

§ 6       Wages

 

 

Territorial minimum wage statute, including provision for punitive damages for wilful failure to pay territorial minimum wage, does not apply to employees covered by provisions of federal minimum wage law.  A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0320, 32.0340.  Moea`i v. Reid, 9 A.S.R.2d 48.

 

 

Punitive damages provision of territorial minimum wage statute, for willful failure to pay the minimum wage, is limited to a claim based on the difference between the employee's hourly wage and the minimum wage; this provision does not apply to an action for breach of contract where, although the employee has not been paid, his contractual wage was higher than the statutory minimum.  A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0320, 32.0340.  Moea`i v. Reid, 9 A.S.R.2d 48.

 

 

Statutory provision for punitive damages for wilful failure to pay overtime wage rates is applicable whether or not the ordinary wage rate is determined by contract.  A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0323, 32.0340.  Moea`i v. Reid, 9 A.S.R.2d 48.

 

 

Employer's failure to pay overtime wage rate was not wilful where employer (1) admitted liability for overtime payments; (2) disputed, not without merit, the number of overtime hours claimed by employee; and (3) offered uncontradicted testimony that nonpayment of other amounts was due to inability to pay.  A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0320, 32.0340.  Moea`i v. Reid, 9 A.S.R.2d 48.

 

 

The terms of a seaman's contract were adjudicated as being those contained in his payroll form when the contract reflected the parties' negotiations by telephone and when the claimed parol variation would be essentially gratuitous on the captain's part.  Zuguin v. M/V Captain M.J. Souza, 23 A.S.R.2d 7.

 

 

When a seaman had worked to prepare a vessel for an upcoming voyage before leaving the vessel, he was entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis.  Zuguin v. M/V Captain M.J. Souza, 23 A.S.R.2d 7.

 

 

back to top

 

 

§ 7       Workmen’s Compensation

 

 

SEE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

 

 

back to index