*1 175 unimpeded when there continue P.2d 560 497 discovery with a order non-compliance been LAWLESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Mike not abuse its trial court did and that v. present in the case. doing so discretion Hendren, dba DAVIS and Elbert John affirmed. Judgment Logging, Hendren Davis Defendant-Respondent. McFADDEN, J., and C. SHEPARD JJ., BISTLINE, concur. No. 12287. BAKES, Justice, concurring specially: of Idaho. Supreme Court majority that I.C.R. with the agree 18, Feb. court to require district
16(g) does not еxclusionary rule for failure per se apply a I also discovery requests. comply with say on this record we cannot
agree that the trial court’s an abuse of intro- prosecution allow the
discretion Accordingly, in this case. evidence
duce disposition appeal. of this
join in the Court’s
However, requirements of the due explained in the cases of
process clause 97, Agurs, 427 96 v. U.S.
United States 2392, (1976), Brady 342 49 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct. 83, 1194, 83 10 Maryland,
v. U.S. S.Ct. (1963), make it clear that if the
L.Ed.2d requested specifically which Buss
evidence
“might have affected the outcome 104, (Agurs, 427 at at
trial” U.S. S.Ct.
2400), guilt “material either to or to or was (Brady, 373 at
punishment" U.S. S.Ct. 1197), Buss would be entitled to a then
new trial. It would not have mattered that signed by judge,
the order was
long as the motion or order was served attorney so that he knew prosecuting requested. material was That our procedure do not
state rules of criminal discovery of these
contemplate materials mean that the state avoid the
does not set down
clear constitutional mandate Agurs to specifically turn over
Brady
requested material evidence. requested material neither hearing transcript preliminary
nor a these, cannot this record. Without comply impact of the failure to
gauge may be matters request. Suсh post conviction petition
explored
relief, be settled on they cannot inadequacy of the
appeal because of the
record before us. *2 payment
dren did until tender seeking Lawless recovery un- der
which time tender was made court. Code in § 45-606 relevant as follows: reads “Whenever of labor shall his discharge lay hereafter or off or its employees without first them the any wages salary then due * * * his or its employ- them each of may charge wages and collect ees upon agreed in the contract sum of em- day for his ployment each full, until he is default rendering any provided, therefor: service however, he cease to draw shall such wages salary thirty days after such default.” 45-615(4) reads: Idaho Code § “Any judgment plaintiff in pro- for the ceeding pursuant to this act shall include reasonably costs incurred connec- proceedings plain- tion tiff, director in shall be to recover entitled defendant as damages, three timеs the amount of owing.” due and found 45-615(4), Pursuant district awarded Lawless the $540 court him at owed to the termination his em- that amount in ac- ployment trebled the terms of statute. cordance Foster, plaintiff- Grangeville, H. for Wm. Lawless’ right court denied appellant. also recover 45-606 and to 45-615(4). recovery treble that under I.C. § Boomer, Kamiah, Henry R. for defend- appeals, maintaining that Lawless ant-respondent. deny recovery error for district court to I.C. 45-606. Lawless also contends under DONALDSON, Justice. any recovery under case involves the interrelation of two This 45-615(4). be trebled under I.C. Wages in Idaho’s Claims validity of the district court’s The order em- Appellant Mike Lawless was Statute. appellant awarding outstanding the $540 respondent Davis & Hendren ployed by same is not trebling chal- At the time of the termination of Logging. lenged. employment, Hendrеn Lawless’ Davis & authority There is case addressed Lawless back Lawless no owed appeal. raises on suit in district court to collect back to the issues Lawless filed guided by have to be and at the district found therefore Court principles statutory construction general & Hendren failed to that Davis payment. appraisal of what the requested had dis- and a common sense after he Viewing the further that Davis & Hen- intended. Claims trict court found amended, Wages the Idaho Claims for As Wages a whole conclude Statute recovery comprehensive provided a intended I.C. Statute First, authorizing prosecu- mutually exclusive. scheme. and § Labor, tion of claims plaintiff alternative remedies. A They are the enforcement made wages along with thir- amendments back for his can sue *3 second, we likely. more And the statute § under I.C. ty days additional statute, provid- legislature interpret suit under I.C. § 606. If he files employee alternative aggrieved however, forego damages. ed an he must treble his of alternative, to circumstances he can suit under remedies meet In the statutory provision on his case. Which 45-615(4) recovery particular a treble for I.C. § employee depend will of better serve he cannot avаil himself will wages. back But outstanding wages. of upon the amount both remedies. outstanding wages is nom- If of the amount clearly did not indicate The by inal, served employee be better 45-615(4) were § § that seeking recovery under I.C. The stat- as alternative remedies. intended outstanding amount of addition to whether the are silent as utory provisions up a maximum receive wages, could mutually should be cumulative or remedies If wages. additional thirty of a But reasonable construction exclusive. outstanding wages larger, Wages for militates the Claims Statute however, employee it will behoove applying cumulatively. them against recovery a seek treble 45— originally 45-606 was en- Idaho Code § 615(4). for 1911 as of Idaho’s acted in Claims urged construction Law The penalizes employer It an Wages Statute. less, be used the remedies сan cumula that discharges employee an who without As extreme results. tively, impose would wages. him back In addition to his back pointed out in his the trial memoran employee allows the wages, the section to opinion, applying the two statutes dum of his working, the amount collect without recovery a give Lawless gether would day that his daily wage for each equivalent times the amount to fourteen рass settling allows to the out- elementary wages. It is an withheld claim. allows a standing wage The section statutory construction that principle recovery thirty days additional maximum proposed interpretation a consequences of when statute can be considered of a 45-615(4) Idaho Code was enacted of more than one con capable statute compiler’s note to I.C. § сhoosing between When alterna struction. were 45-609 —45-615 states constructions, presume courts should tive Idaho’s intended amend Claims a enacted to work a statute was not enacted, originally As Wages Statute. oppressive an result. hardship or effect Wages had two Idaho Claims Statute render the statute Constructions would First, filing suit the burden of deficiencies. unnecessarily productive harsh conse given the fact employee. Even was on the Accordingly, are be avoided. quences thirty days recovery additional that an should be re ambiguity in statute statute, plac- possible under the operation solved in favor of reasonable litigative employee burden on the ing the law. 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes Second, if less effective. statute made the outstanding wages Individually, 45-606 and I.C. were of substan- unambiguous. ar fil- the threat are tiаl amount statutory consequences thirty days an ing gues to extract additional construing often would therefore not be considered wages from however, Appellant’s theory, to induce the to set- the statutes. be sufficient provisions amicably. ignores The amendments fact introduced tle his account amendatory act must be read uni- these defects. rectified original thorough son with the In a Memorandum Decision the left were unaffected amend- history dispute trial court laid out a Am.Jur.2d 343. An ments. 73 Statutes § showed ambiguity here which some as to ambiguity when appears obvious discharged, whether Lawless was quit. 606 and I.C. are considered to- found, however, The court that Lawless had gether. legislature has not indicated made a valid demand for his whether intended the remedies to be forthcoming suit, were not until he cumulatively altеrnatively. available following which the back due him of liberty We are at therefore consider the were pay- tendered into court. This $453.33 consequences practical interpreta- of both ment was made nine days after suit was tions. considering And so those conse- commenced. trial court noted that quences, we conclude that Lawless, he quit whether discharged, *4 must have intended that the remedies be demand, having made was in either event Construing alternative. entitled to immediate payment. The stat- 45-615(4) as applying alternatively effec- provides: ute so underlying legislative tuates the intention Discharge “45-606. of laborer without encouraging employers of to settle their wages Penalty.—Whenever payment of — discharged employees, with accounts but any labor shall hereafter dis- by ag- does nоt lead to windfall recoveries charge lay off its employees or his or grieved employees. without first them the amount of respondents.
Affirmed. Costs to them, salary cash, or any due money States, lawful the United or its McFADDEN, J., SHEPARD, J., C. and equivalent, shall fail or refuse on de- concur. pay mand to them in money, like or its equivalent, the amount of BISTLINE, Justice, concurring in the re- salary time the at the same becomes due sult. оwing and to them under their contract well-reasoned, majority opinion ” employment, (Emphasis but I unable to the am reach same final added.) legislature that “the conclusion must have matter, In exercising discretion in the intended that remedies alternative.” undoubtedly the mix-up trial court noted I am in accord with the trial wherein parties between and the relative alacri- he noted that this Court in Goff had held payment ty with which was made after suit that fixed the additional of I.C. was filed. Had it been a clear-cut case of but mandatory, 45-615 were entertained employer discharging paying, without additionally impose own view there is an to be drawn that inference allowable, penalty I.C. 45-606 might trial court have also assessed the mandatory. He stated: penalty of I.C. believe, given “The does not justice of this circumstances holding preclude imposition requires of both the 45-606 court, jury, giving complete penalty damages.” the 45-615 treble and relief statutory provisions, under both and (My emphasis.) this I think do not this Court should do on as to mere surmise Court feels the His that he had view discretion the mat- one, absent, legislature passing had mind in 1967 in majori- ter is the correct notes, any clear into law what now I.C. ty legis- indication from the history legis- through the two 45-615. What lature that “were intend- I lation we have available that it was ed as alternative remedies.” would leave shows Senate, them, ap- as we find and had the accept the statutes and introduced view, Industry, proval the trial court’s and hold here of the Committee for La- bor, Development, suggest- no abuse in his exercise of discre- and Economic ing my tion. full well mind
I79 previous penalty and authorized enforсe these supplemented it realized compe- damage provisions in court of provisions. statutory (My emphasis.) jurisdiction.” tent here chose While certainly permissible, emphasizing addition to the word as is In his own help- the De- “may”, also saw the need call attention to the fact public Regulations in its partment office Rules and laborers ing unpaid failing pay provi- drawn distinction between of Labоr. Under Department demand, pay- discharging without Department is authoriz- the act sions ing. discharging paying, case of without up to the amount investigate claims toed it, see tells $450.00, investigation includes and this paying— he can not terminate without hearings taking of testimo- holding of so, attempts do contin- if he the worker cannot enter While the ny. payroll paid, up until ues on the until on its conclusions and deci- judgment based dаys. It not be overlooked sions, to take an as- is then authorized proposition is the back of all this claim, signment mitigate damages. A who duty to worker act, regard to As I read the thereon. discharged pay should not be is so $450.00, Department, while over claims days where entitled to draw go through investigatory deci- it cannot obtained during that same he has sion-making assignments process, take In this situation employment. other pursue claims for the laborer. *5 always damages of I.C. 45-615 are fixed Therefore, it my signifi to mind is of help to as an additional induce- serve Department, very well cance which employers. to ment amendment, sponsored the may have should which The Court reach a decision regarding entertains the same conclusion harmony with the which the application of I.C. 45-606 and 45-615 as thinking Department of Labor has enacted by was reached court in this case. looking for the out welfare itself Regulations promulgated by Rules and be laboring man. At all times Department of Labor and Industrial penalties are kept in mind that if these authority 45- under of I.C. § Services stiff, option be with the thought to thereof, 07-80-204, 613(1), Chapter 2 If the em- who owes the employer reads as follows: times, and hard ployer has fallen onto “07-80-204. Assessment Pеnalties.— times, or four hundred pay, fourteen When it has been determined that an But, times, wage meaningless. wages to and pay has failed due man, working many monthly with his fixed to em- owing employee an and that said damage him in not obligations, done pay wages has im- ployer failed such earned, he is some- being mediately discharge layoff, both upon nothing short of disastrous. times damage penalty provided in the treblе determi- The trial reached a sound Code, 45-615(4), Section Idaho failure no reason for this Court to I see nation. pay wages owing and and the due prob- of the same another resolution seek pay wages failure to immedi- penalty for so, admittedly lem, especially doing when termination, ately upon contained in Sec- conjecture, may be judicial surmise and Code, may imposed tion Idaho be overturning specific legislation remedial department. penalty imposed by the protection was enacted for 45- against an under Section family. laboring man and his Idaho Code, shall not trebled as be pursuant 45- unpaid wages to Section BAKES, Justice, concurring in and Code, 615(4), Idaho but shall be added part: dissenting in wages owing due and treble dam- that, with cer pursuant agree ages awarded Section limitаtions, provided by tain the remedies 615(4), department Idaho Code. The “3. Whenever are alterna director I.C. determines §§ tive, (1) or wage employees this claimant was enti one more have unpaid wages 45-606 because tled to claims wages following any proceeding claim for unpaid appropriate he has a maintain claims, How the claim or employment. the termination of his including enforce ad- ever, wage damages pursuant view of the amount of the ditional fixed to this $540,1 e., remedy this claim in i. act. appel was not available to “4. Any judgment for plaintiff lant, sustaining erred in Court has pursuant proceeding shall in- damages award. triple reasonably clude costs incurred in con- nection with the proceedings and the 45-606, together with plaintiff, or the director in his -607, 605 and set forth the rules for dam- shall entitled to recover from the de- attorney ages, fees and liens for collection fendant, damages, three times the brought by suits wages found due and against for collection of owing.
following termination employment. ”3 These sections were all enacted (Emphasis added). 45-609-613, only proceedings established In 1967 the added I.C. §§ act are ,2 those which the director chapter. to this sec These -615 Depаrtment of Labor and concerning require tions forth rules Industrial set represents wage Services claimant. regular payment Sub- ments for 1 of section lag authorizes the the allowable between the end of a represent director period payday, por claimants for withholding any claim of less employee’s tion of an and the notifi established withheld; “chapter”. However, damage provi- cation of amounts furthermore, pro the last sions contained in of these sections subsections and 4 of apply only vides the director of the that section proceedings pur- *6 act,” e., of Labor and Industrial Services to “this i. may suant the 1967 act which suit wage on behalf certain established the proceedings claimants: in which the represented by director, claimant is not Proceedings “45-615. for collection of proceedings chapter. under «the limit. —1. $450— Therefore, opinion, triple in my damage Claims filed with the director of de- provision only availa- §
partment of labor and industrial services proceeding ble to claimant who initiates a chapter as set forth in this are limited act, e., pursuant proceeding the 1967 i. fifty ($450) four hundred dollars for each represents the in which the director claim- emрloyee. Wage proceed ant. claimants who do not Any proceeding by “2. one or more through the director with their claims are any arising employees to assert claim un- 45-605-607. §§ controlled pursuant may der this any juris- wage entitled brought competent This claimant was not individual, diction, either rep- triple damages as class or under I.C. 45-615 because § resentative suits. represented by he was not the direсtor. figure comply 1. $540 is for due before with- with the act was a misdemeanor. taxes; holding for income and FICA the claim- eliminated, the remain- section was When only $453.33 ant would have been entitled to renumbered, ing section and in not was withholding $540 after these taxes. The approved, bill reference was still made final due, figure determining penalty is used in 45-614, removed in Sec. 6 to which had been $453.33 amount would be the bill. withholding of taxеs. quoted appears after 3.The section is as it 1971 original bill introduced also contained a 1974 amendments. 45-614, section, provided which that failure to
181 was, assuming that held that Indeed, represented ineligible he was claim, unnecessary to show that act- wage director because by the wilfulness, wantonness, “with ed fraud $540, limit set was exceeded the which in order to collect treble dam- reason, oppression” 45-615(1). For that forth in section, merely but ages under remedy collection sóle and exclusive wages. Now had withheld the set unpaid wage claim was of the entire directly in this the issue before us 45-605-607. those forth in I.C. Under we must decide sections, plaintiff was entitled to his chapter enacted when it claim, intended wage additional $540 Laws which added 1967 Session I.C. §§ attorney requisite if together with fees 45-615, chapter 6 of Title providеd in I.C. 45-605 was demand that those sections are no Recognizing made. draftsmanship,4 the most reasona- model of the fact that not unmindful am appears to me to be that interpretation ble Co., H. H. of Goff v. J. decision recent above, e., a wage i. claim which set out (1974); P.2d 661 held con- must be wage claimant handles himself conclusion. that case trary to this 45-605-608, to I.C. pursuant handled trebling wage of a approvеd Court out triple damages set himself in an the claimant claim 615(4) inapplicable. would reverse are be' in excess of to the and remand district court for re- assigned the commissioner labor. computation appellant’s claim un- parties issue as raised der I.C. 45-605-608. was not whether I.C. in that case correct, the Court is If claim, whether or applicable however, and he can under either provided penalty I.C. § not the I see no other conclusion than that one then mandatory only in all cases or where to both the would be entitled showing was a thirty days wages provided for in additional wantonness, wilfulness, fraud “acted damages provided and the treble oppression” the district court had in- 45-615(4). for in § question terpreted posed the statute. The by the Court was as follows:
“The Court asked to decide whethеr 45-615(4) requires that treble dam- plain-
ages be awarded successful wages wrongfully with-
tiff
held, showing without a even
person who withheld acted wantonness, malice, or oppres- fraud 838, P.2d at 662. Idaho at
sion.” 95 addressing the of whether question
Without applicable was even
or not I.C. § all to the claim that chapter 3, 16, quality draftsmanship prohib- of the Constitution which Art. exem- obviously the 1967 Session Laws is further Legislation had so its. throughout plified the act the fact that both require- drafting to technical little attention body it refers to the amend- the title and the confuse, ments, only at best and at worst 44, Code, “chapter of6 title ment of legislative intention. frustrate thereto, by adding fol- a new section . it, hoping as we find to make a must take it desig- lowing to be known section divergent interpretation of these reasonable ” Apparent- as section nated that, recognizing provisions, “You can never pro- ly title the act noticed that the no one Dykes, a Sow’s Ear.” Purse of make silken body posed Title while the amend (1709), p. English Proverbs 45, something proceeded Title bill to amend