Sonderling B. Corp. v. District of Col. M. W. & I. S. Bd.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 7540.,7540. |
| Parties | SONDERLING BROADCASTING CORPORATION, t/a Radio Station WOL, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINIMUM WAGE AND INDUSTRIAL SAFETY BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Howard B. Silberberg, Arlington, Va., for petitioner.
E. Calvin Golumbic, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom C. Francis Murphy, Corp. Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before REILLY, Chief Judge, and KELLY and YEAGLEY, Associate Judges.
Sonderling Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) filed this petition for review of two determinations by the District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board (the Board) in which (1) SBC was advised that it owed and should pay a former employee all commissions earned prior to termination of his employment (see D.C.Code 1973, § 36-606) and (2) the Board declined to issue a declaratory order under D.C.Code 1973, § 1-1508, which petitioner had requested.1 Since it is evident that this court has no jurisdiction under the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act (DCAPA)2 to review either the Board's wage claim determination or its refusal to issue the declaratory order, the petition for review must be dismissed.
Both in contesting the wage claim and in seeking a declaratory order petitioner SBC relied upon a written contract which provided that its salesmen forfeited all right to be credited with commissions on accounts not collected within thirty days of the termination of their employment. The Board determined that commissions were earned by employees when sales were made and no contract forfeiture provision could divest an employee of his right to earn commissions, such a provision being in derogation of the Wage Payment Law.3 The Board found SBC to be in violation of law for failure to pay its former employee the commissions he had earned prior to the termination of his employment and informed SBC that appropriate legal action would be recommended.4
The DCAPA gives this court jurisdiction to review agency decisions in contested cases. D.C.Code 1973 § 1-1510. Excluded from the definition of contested cases, however, are those matters which are subject to a de novo trial of the law and the facts in any court. D.C.Code 1973, § 1-1502(8). A wage claim determination of the Board is enforceable only through criminal prosecution, D.C. Code 1973, § 36-606(a), or civil litigation, D.C.Code 1973, § 36-608(a). In such litigation, any issues of fact or law will be determined entirely upon the pleadings and trial record, and not upon the proceedings before the Board. Consequently, the challenged determination of the Board is not an appealable order under the DCAPA.
As to the Board's failure to issue a declaratory order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People's Counsel v. Public Service Com'M
...that provision of the DCAPA. The case on which this division principally relies, Sonderling Broadcasting Corp. v. District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, 315 A.2d 828, 829 (D.C. 1974), provides no such analysis. Accordingly, although I agree with the majority's conclu......
-
Newsweek Magazine v. Dist. of Columbia Comn.
...enforcement proceeding initiated in the Superior Court. Art. 47, § 9(b). Cf. Sonderling Broadcasting Corp. v. District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, D.C.App., 315 A.2d 828 (1974). I think this is a sound observation, despite the rather indignantly expressed view of t......