 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tesoro Petroleum Corporation v. State2/15/2002
pretation, we look to the policy behind the statute and the reality of the relationship, rather than to the parties' contractual statement of the relationship. Also, because the terms "independent contractor" and "employee" have different ramifications in different areas of the law, contractual use of the term "independent contractor" cannot be determinative. The statutory term "authorized employee of the state" need not be understood as the equivalent of the common law term "employee," which is typically mutually exclusive of the term "independent contractor." Instead "authorized employee" should be understood in its statutory context as a grant of investigative power to the attorney general. In that context, it can sensibly include private lawyers hired by the state to assist in antitrust investigations.
Alaska Statute 45.50.592 is arguably ambiguous. The statute does not define its critical terms "authorized employee of the state," "representative," or "designee," and it is not facially obvious whether a private attorney hired by the attorney general should qualify as an "authorized employee." Definition of the relevant terms in this context is a matter of statutory construction. The purpose of statutory construction is "to give effect to the intent of the legislature, with due regard for the meaning that the statutory language conveys to others." Statutory construction begins with the language of the statute construed in light of the purpose of its enactment. If the statute is unambiguous and expresses the legislature's intent, statutes will not be modified or extended by judicial construction. If we find a statute ambiguous, we apply a sliding scale of interpretation, where "the plainer the language, the more convincing contrary legislative history must be."
3. Legislative history
Although the legislative history does not reveal specific intent for the meaning of the relevant statutory language, we discern two legislative concerns: (1) granting sufficient power to the attorney general to conduct thorough pre-litigation investigation, and (2) implementing procedural safeguards to protect companies from unfair treatment.
A February 10, 1975 letter from Governor Jay S. Hammond announcing the signing of AS 45.50 explained that " provision of this nature is desirable because detection of violations of the antitrust laws is often a difficult matter requiring review of numerous business transactions which have occurred over an extended period of time." Governor Hammond went on to explain the dual concerns behind the law in question: "to provide the attorney general with the power he needs, but also to provide detailed procedural controls which will prevent unfair and arbitrary action by the attorney general."
When the legislature enacted AS 45.50.592, it had already recognized the attorney general's authority to manage state litigation; therefore, according to the State, it clearly intended to give the attorney general broad investigative powers. The statutory term "authorized employee of the state," in the State's view, "simply allows the attorney general the flexibility consistent with AS 44.23.020 . . . to hire outside counsel at the attorney general's discretion, which is the attorney general's longstanding practice in complex cases." Furthermore, the State argues, the United States Department of Justice has similar power under 15 U.S.C. ยง 1313(c)(3) and Aluminum Co. of America v. United States Department of Justice.
It seems unlikely that the legislature, while giving broad investigatory powers to the attorney general, would wish to restrict the attorney general's ability to effectuate such investigations, or that it would cr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|