Ngirasechedui v Palau Community Action Agency [1973] TTLawRp 14; 6 TTR 224 (11 June 1973)

6 TTR 224

TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

PALAU DISTRICT

Civil Action No. 4-73

SANTOS NGIRASECHEDUI

Plaintiff

v.

PALAU COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY AND PETER SUGIYAMA

Defendants

June 1 1, 1973

Action by complaint, but in nature of mandamus, for reinstatement of terminated employee and payment of back pay. The Trial Division of the High Court, D. Kelly Turner, Associate Justice, held officers of community action agency were bound by their board of directors' reinstatement order and could not successfully claim failure to exhaust administrative remedies where those remedies were permissive only.

1. Civil Procedure-Captions

That pleading was labeled "complaint" rather than "mandamus", which it was more nearly in the nature of, was not significant.

2. Administrative Law-Review-Conclusiveness of Decision

Where officers of community action agency terminated plaintiff's employment and executive director refused to reinstate him following hearing before the board of directors which resulted in a board order that agency reinstate plaintiff, and, upon being sent a copy of letter by plaintiff to board regarding plaintiff's nonreinstatement, executive director sent board a letter purporting to appeal the board's decision and board considered the letter, upheld its original decision and notified executive director that further appeals be directed to newly seated board or the Office of Economic Opportunity, board's decision on appeal was conclusive and final and plaintiff, who was again refused reinstatement, would be ordered reinstated and paid the salary he lost during his period of unemployment.

3. Administrative Law-Remedies-Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Where community action agency's manual made use of various administrative remedies permissive, terminated employee was not required to exhaust them prior to taking the matter to the agency's board of directors, and from there, to the courts upon agency's refusal to honor board's reinstatement order.

Assessor:	PABLO RINGANG, Presiding Judge,
		District Court
Interpreter: Reporter: Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel for Defendants:	PETER NGIRAIBIOCHEL ELSIE T. CERISIER ROMAN TMETUCHL PRO SE; JOHN O. NGIRAKED on
		memorandum of points and authorities

Turner, Associate Justice

Plaintiff filed a complaint for reinstatement in his employment with the Palau Community Action Agency and for lost salary from the time of his dismissal, April 14, 1972, until he is reinstated. The case is more than just judicial review of an administrative action.

[1] As is disclosed by the facts, this is more nearly in the nature of a petition for mandamus to require the executive director of the agency to comply with the order of the Board of Directors to reinstate the plaintiff. That the pleading is labeled "complaint" rather than "mandamus" is not significant. The cause of the action is the same, regardless of its label.

The facts reveal an astonishing course of events based upon misconceived authority by the executive director of the agency. In March, 1972, the two Economic Development co-directors of the Palau Community Action Agency sent a notice of discharge to the plaintiff. It began:-

"The PCAA takes deep sorrow in informing you as follows :
Commencing on Friday (March 31, 1972) you are requested to seek another employment, this to end on Friday, April 14, 1972. You will be no longer employed by the PCAA after this date, April 14, 1972."

Then followed five charges, cryptic in nature. What happened after delivery of this letter is not entirely clear but two events may be gleaned from the evidence. (1) A personnel action form of termination, dated April 10, 1972, was prepared and signed by the two supervisors, the personnel officer, the fiscal officer and the defendant, the executive director. (2) The plaintiff communicated, obviously in protest, with the Board of Directors of the Palau Community Action Agency. The evidence did not disclose whether the protest was oral or in writing.

The termination notice and action created a spirited protest in the plaintiff's behalf. After plaintiff had been discharged, the women's group of Aimeliik, with whom plaintiff had been working, wrote to the Palau Community Action Agency executive director April 19, 1972. One of the five dismissal charges was that:-

"Magistrates of Aimeliik and Airai have complained about your works in their municipalities."

The women of Aimeliik responded by telling the Palau Community Action Agency director that they wanted no part of him and his organization in the future. They said:-

"With great sorrow and wonder that have developed in the minds of all members of Ngarayolt Organization by learning of this termination, we are now made aware of the fact that, the future trips by PCAA representatives to visit us will not include Mr. Santos Ngirasechedui, a very dear person to us and his work benefited us and so, we would like to take this opportunity to inform the Executive Director and all the employees working under him that, please be informed that in your coming to visit us is not agreeable to us and will never be and we will not wish to see you for we cannot bear the burden and so let that be it.
And before we come to the conclusions, we would like you to know that we are very thankful for what you have assisted and given us and that if we will need anything in the future, we will approach other Government agencies."

The record is not clear whether the Board saw this letter, but it does appear that the Board held an extensive hearing on the plaintiff's protest of his dismissal. In addition to the plaintiff, the executive director, who also is an ex-officio member of the board, the deputy director and other named persons, members of the Aimeliik women's organization, Ngarayolt, attended the meeting on May 24, 1972.

On May 26, 1972, the Board met for two and one-half hours to consider the plaintiff's case and upon a secret written ballot unanimously agreed to reinstate him in his job. The information was sent to the defendant executive director by letter dated May 26, 1972, which, inter alia, said:-