Opinion ID: 2629967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Authority of the Labor Commissioner

Text: City Plan makes several challenges to the Labor Commissioner's authority to proceed in this matter. City Plan first argues that the Labor Commissioner lacked authority to hear this matter because he failed to follow the requirements of NRS 607.160 and NRS 607.170 before holding the administrative hearing. NRS Chapter 607 governs the Office of the Labor Commissioner, providing that the Labor Commissioner [s]hall enforce all labor laws of the State of Nevada. [7] Accordingly, that chapter defines the scope, generally, of the Labor Commissioner's permissible powers. NRS 607.160 and NRS 607.170 authorize the Labor Commissioner, after due inquiry, to take assignments of wage claims for prosecution or to refer claims to the Attorney General when the claimants are financially unable to employ counsel. [8] Nevertheless, these provisions, which use the word may, not shall, do not set forth mandatory prehearing procedures that the Labor Commissioner was required to follow in this matter but rather delineate the general prosecutorial authority of the Labor Commissioner (and Attorney General) in carrying out his duties under all of the labor laws. [9] As noted above, this is a prevailing wage matter, brought under the specific public works project statutes in NRS Chapter 338. [10] Before an amendment in 2003, NRS 338.015 specifically permitted the Labor Commissioner to hold hearings on and assess penalties for violations of NRS 338.010 to 338.130, inclusive. [11] That statute never mandated that the Labor Commissioner comply with any NRS 607.160 and NRS 607.170 prehearing procedure; instead, it required the Labor Commissioner, after rendering a decision, to notify the Attorney General [12] of any violations for prosecution. [13] Accordingly, the Labor Commissioner acted within the scope of his statutory power in conducting the hearing in this instance. Next, City Plan asserts that the Labor Commissioner's Office failed to comply with the requirements of NAC 607.200 because the amended administrative complaint was not verified or filed, and it was signed more than twenty-four months after the last act complained about in the complaint. According to City Plan, the Labor Commissioner was therefore without jurisdiction over this matter. The title of NAC 607.200 is Practice Rules: Pleading: Complaints to the Commissioner. This section plainly covers the requirements for individuals filing complaints with the Labor Commissioner, not the requirements for the Labor Commissioner's Office filing a claim. Here, the claimants filed their wage claims with the Labor Commissioner in 1999, well within the period prescribed by NAC 607.200, making the claims timely under the regulation. The Labor Commissioner's subsequent amended complaint was not governed by NAC 607.200, and therefore, it did not have to meet that regulatory requirement.