Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-3-216 (2026)

Mediation -- Hearing

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 3. WAGES AND WAGE PROTECTION

Part 2. Payment of Wages

Mediation -- Hearing

39-3-216. Mediation -- hearing. (1) If the department determines that a wage claim is valid and the employer does not appeal the determination, the department may enter a default order against the employer for the amount of wages due and for any penalty assessed pursuant to 39-3-206. The department may enforce the default order pursuant to 39-3-212.

(2) If a party disputes the determination of the department prior to a contested case, the department shall conduct mediation of the dispute in accordance with guidelines to be established by department rule.

(3) When the department determines that a wage claim is valid, the department shall mail the determination to the parties at the last-known address of each party. If a party appeals the department's determination within 15 days after the determination is mailed by the department, a hearing must be conducted according to contested case procedures under Title 2, chapter 4, part 6, except that service need not be made as prescribed for civil actions in the district court and the hearings officer is not bound by statutory or common-law rules of evidence. The hearing may be conducted by telephone or by videoconference. The department shall by rule provide relief for a person who does not receive the determination by mail.

(4) The decision of the hearings officer is final unless an aggrieved party requests a rehearing or initiates judicial review, pursuant to Title 2, chapter 4, part 7, by filing a petition in district court within 30 days of the date of mailing of the hearings officer's decision.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 554, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 490, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 134, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 90, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 442, L. 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Griz One v. State DOLI, 2020 MT 285, 475 P.3d 739.
Griz One v. State DOLI, 2020 MT 285, 475 P.3d 739. · cites it 9× “Griz One contends that § 39-3-216(3), MCA, provides that employers have 15 days to respond.”
Art v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus. ex rel. Mason, 2002 MT 327, 60 P.3d 958. · cites it 6× “Section 39-3-216, MCA (1995), states in pertinent part: (2) When the department determines that a wage claim is valid, the department shall mail the determination to the parties at the last-known address of each party.”
Stanley v. Holms, 883 P.2d 837 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 2× “See §§ 39-3-216 and -217, MCA. In response, Stanley relies on language found in several sections of Part 2.”
Am.'s Best Contractors, Inc. v. Singh, 2014 MT 70, 321 P.3d 95. · cites it 3× “Section 39-3-216(3), MCA. The procedures are relaxed in an effort to allow the claimant’s substantive rights to be adjudicated in an informal manner and in the absence of legal representation.”
Fletcher v. Park Cnty., 2003 MT 96N. · cites it 2× “Pursuant to § 39-3-216, MCA, the matter was then referred to mediation prior to scheduling of the administrative hearing.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-3-216(2): 1 case
Art v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus. ex rel. Mason, 2002 MT 327, 60 P.3d 958. “Section 39-3-216, MCA (1995), states in pertinent part: (2) When the department determines that a wage claim is valid, the department shall mail the determination to the parties at the last-known address of each party.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-3-216(3): 2 cases
Griz One v. State DOLI, 2020 MT 285, 475 P.3d 739. “Griz One contends that § 39-3-216(3), MCA, provides that employers have 15 days to respond.”
Am.'s Best Contractors, Inc. v. Singh, 2014 MT 70, 321 P.3d 95. “Section 39-3-216(3), MCA. The procedures are relaxed in an effort to allow the claimant’s substantive rights to be adjudicated in an informal manner and in the absence of legal representation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.