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.
Submitted: November 9, 2000
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND SEPTEMBER
of Case: The Court previously permitted respondent
employers to submit employee information to enable the
Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) to recalculate penalties.
A prior extension was granted requiring all records be
submitted by October 12, 2000, and specifying the form of the
records. On October 13th, the Court received a
motion to amend the Order to allow less complete records to
be provided. Actual records were later provided to the Court
on November 8, 2000, and to UEF on November 13, 2000, more
than a month late.
The motion is untimely; moreover the information tendered is
incomplete, inadequate, and late. The motion is therefore
denied. Since respondents failed to comply with the
Court's prior Order, the UEF is relieved from its
agreement to recompute the penalties.
Procedure: Reconsideration. Motions to
reconsider must be filed within 20 days. Rule 24.5.337.
Penalties: Uninsured Employers. Respondent
employers failed to comply with the Order which permitted
them to submit employee records so the UEF could recompute
penalties; therefore, the UEF is relieved its agreement to
recompute the penalties. The order allowing recomputation was
a matter of grace since the penalties were upheld by the
¶1 In my June 26, 2000 decision and order on appeal,
2000 MTWCC 39, at paragraph 85, I affirmed the Uninsured
Employers' Fund's (UEF) computation of penalties
against the respondent Montana employers (the Human Dynamics
Corporation's (HDC) client companies), noting that the
alleged deficiencies in computing the penalties were
"due to the actions of HDC and the client companies,
which refused to produce the [employee] records in Montana
where Department [of Labor and Industry] employees
work." (¶ 85.) Nonetheless, I recognized that the
penalties might be more precisely calculated upon production
of "wage records and classification information."
(2000 MTWCC 39, ¶ 86) I then made the following
Unless the UEF objects, I will grant the client companies 30
days in which to provide the UEF with the information
necessary for more accurate calculations. If that information
is satisfactory, then I will order that the penalties be
recalculated based on the information.
(Id.) UEF responded three days later, stating:
The UEF has no objection to recalculating the penalties
assessed against the Montana client companies . . . based
upon the timely submission of employee wage records pursuant
to the order of this Court.
(APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF NON-OBJECTION TO ORDER AND REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONS IN EVENT OF APPEAL at 2.)
On July 21, 2000, some three and a half weeks after my
initial Order, counsel for respondents (Mr. Utick), requested
a telephone conference with the Court to discuss deadlines
and procedures for recomputing the penalties. (ORDER VACATING
FINAL CERTIFICATIONAND AMENDING DECISION AND ORDER ON APPEAL
at ¶ 3.) A telephone conference was held among myself,
Mr. Utick and Mr. Daniel B. McGregor, attorney for the UEF.
Mr. Peter J. Stockstad, who represented one of the other
parties, was inadvertently left out of the telephone
conference. Mr. Stockstad was later informed of the
conference and the agreement reached by counsel and the
Court, and he agreed with the resolution.
During the conference, counsel and I agreed to amendment of
paragraphs 93 and 94. The amendment to paragraph 94 provided
that the decision in this case shall not ...