EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS DIVISION UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND Appellant
TOTAL MECHANICAL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, et al. Respondents/Cross Appellants and HUMAN DYNAMICS CORPORATION and HRC/HRC ARMCO, INCORPORATED Respondents.
ORDER VACATING FINAL CERTIFICATION AND AMENDING
DECISION AND ORDER ON APPEAL
Following decision on appeal, parties contacted the Court to
request delay in certification of the case for appeal to the
Supreme Court and to establish dates for further proceedings
in the Workers' Compensation Court.
Orders entered to facilitate orderly handling of issues
remaining in lower court.
On June 26, 2000, this Court entered its Decision and Order
on Appeal Reversing a Department Decision Finding That
Various Client Companies of Human Dynamics Corporation and
Hrc/hrc Armco Were Insured. 2000 Mtwcc 39. As a Part of That
Decision, I Provided the Parties with an Opportunity to
Recalculate Penalties Based upon Actual Employment Records.
¶ 86 and 87. The Order Required the Uef to Notify the
Court Within 10 Days as to Whether it Objected to the
Recalculation. If it Did Not, Then the Client Companies Were
Given 30 Days to Provide Employee Records to the Uef. The Uef
Then Had 30 Days to Recalculate the Penalties and the Client
Companies Had 20 Days Thereafter to Object.
Following My Decision the Uef Filed a Notice Stating it Did
Not Object to Recalculating the Penalty. Appellant's
Notice of Non-objection to Order and Request for Conditions
in Event of Appeal (Docketed June 29, 2000). On its Part, Hdc
and the Client Companies Moved for Reconsideration of the
Merits of the Court's Decision. Respondent's Combined
Motion for Reconsideration, Petition for New Trial, Motion to
Reopen the Evidence, or Request for Amendment to the
on July 21, 2000, Mr. Utick, Attorney for Respondents,
Requested a Telephone Conference with the Court and a
Conference Call Was Thereafter Held with Myself, Mr. Utick
and Mr. Mcgregor Participating. Following the Conference
Call, Mr. Peter J. Stokstad Was Contacted by the Court and He
Agreed with the Substance of the Conference. The Purpose of
the Conference Was to Discuss the Deadlines and Procedures
for Recomputation and the Impact on the Running of Any Appeal
Period. After Discussion, Both Counsel and the Court Agreed
That the Decision Shall Be Amended as Follows:
Certification of the Decision as Final Shall Be Vacated.
Accordingly, ¶ 94 Is Amended to Provide as Follows:
• ¶94. 4. This Decision Shall Not Become Final
until (1) the Court Rules on All Post-decision Motions to
Amend, for Reconsideration, for a New Trial, or to Present
Additional Evidence, and (2) the Penalties
Are Recalculated and the Time for Objections for the
Recalculation Has Either Expired Without Objections or the
Court Has Ruled on the Objections, or the Client Companies
Fail to Submit the Employee Records Necessary for
Recalculation to the Department by August 24, 2000.
Paragraph 93 Is Amended as Follows:
¶93. 2. If the Uef Objects to this Court's Provision
Giving the Client Companies Leave to Submit Employee Records
Which Will Enable the Department to More Accurately Calculate
the Penalties Due from the Companies, Then it Shall File its
Written Objections Within 10 Days of this Decision. If No
Objection Is Filed, Then the Client Companies Have until
August 24, 2000 in Which to Submit Employee Records to the
Uef and the Uef Shall Have 30 Days Thereafter to Prepare and
Submit Recalculated Penalties. The Client Companies Shall
Then Have 20 Days in Which to File Objections to the Manner
or Amounts of Those Calculations. If Objections Are Filed,
They Shall Be Treated as Part of this Appeal and the Parties
Will Be Provided with a Further Opportunity to Brief and
Argue the Objections. If the Uef Objects to the Recalculation
of the Penalties or the Client Companies Fail to Avail
Themselves of the Opportunity Provided Herein, Then the
Penalty Amounts Set Forth in Paragraphs 52 and 54 of this
Decision Shall Become Final. Meanwhile, the Court Retains
Continuing Jurisdiction in this Matter.
We Also Discussed Respondents' Motion for an Order
Requiring a Settlement Conference. I Advised Counsel That I
Would Not Order a Settlement Conference, However, I Did
Encourage Them to Engage in Settlement Negotiations in an
Attempt to Resolve this Entire Matter Without Further
Litigation or Appeal. If it Will Be Helpful to Them, Clarice
Beck Is Available to Act as a Mediator.
Finally, We Agreed That the Time for the Uef to Respond to
the Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration Shall Be
Deferred until the Penalties Are Recalculated and the Time
for Filing of Objections Has Expired. So That the Parties
Have Firm Dates in Mind, the Uef s Answer Brief Shall Be
Filed on or Before September 20, 2000, and Any Reply Brief
Shall Be Filed on or Before October 2, 2000. If the Motion Is
Denied, Then the Court Will Set a Schedule for Briefing and
Arguing Any Objections to Recalculated Penalties.
a Draft of this Order Was Prepared and Sent by Facsimile
Transmission to Counsel and They ...