Bitney v. School District No. 44

No. 12878 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1975 ROBERT S. BITNEY, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 44 e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : C. W. J o n e s a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents: Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Donald E. White a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: March 4, 1975 Decided : ,,;,.d , ,,~ - ,, "- Filed: ' M. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. r This i s an a p p e a l from an amended judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, awarding p l a i n t i f f $166.47 i n s i c k l e a v e , and $1,347.90 i n annual l e a v e a s compensation upon t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s employment a s s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s c h o o l s f o r School D i s t r i c t No. 44, G a l l a t i n County. P l a i n t i f f Robert S. Bitney was h i r e d by defendant school d i s t r i c t a s school s u p e r i n t e n d e n t f o r t h e school y e a r s 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73, under t h r e e s e p a r a t e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t s of employment. Defendant s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a t a board meeting h e l d on January 9 , 1974, r e s o l v e d t o t e r m i n a t e p l a i n t i f f ' s employment w i t h t h e school d i s t r i c t a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n of h i s c o n t r a c t f o r t h a t school y e a r . Upon completion of t h e school y e a r , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a claim w i t h t h e school board f o r $4,537.93 f o r 75 days of unused annual l e a v e ; $513.34 f o r 34 days of unused s i c k l e a v e ; and $144.28 f o r fringe benefits. P l a i n t i f f a r r i v e d a t t h e s e f i g u r e s by d i v i d i n g h i s y e a r l y s a l a r y by 12 f o r a monthly s a l a r y f i g u r e ; d i v i d e d t h a t f i g u r e by 20, t h e average number of working days p e r month, f o r a d a i l y r a t e of pay. He followed t h a t procedure f o r each y e a r he was employed by t h e school d i s t r i c t ; then m u l t i p l i e d t h e r e s u l t i n g f i g u r e by t h e number of days of annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e he had n o t used d u r i n g t h a t y e a r . Defendant school d i s t r i c t denied h i s c l a i m , b u t tendered p l a i n t i f f $166.47 a s compensation f o r unused s i c k l e a v e . During t h e p e r i o d of h i s employment p l a i n t i f f a t t e n d e d c l a s s e s a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y working towards h i s d o c t o r of philosophy degree. The school board was aware of t h i s a t t h e t i m e t h e y e n t e r e d i n t o each of t h e employment c o n t r a c t s . P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r t h e amount a l l e g e d due him by t h e school d i s t r i c t . The cause was t r i e d before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury. The c o u r t i n i t s o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law h e l d t h a t under t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e school d i s t r i c t p l a i n t i f f s annual l e a v e d i d n o t a c c r u e from y e a r t o y e a r and consequently p l a i n t i f f was e n t i t l e d t o only 20 days annual l e a v e under h i s c o n t r a c t , b u t under s e c t i o n 59-1002, R.C.M. 1947, p l a i n t i f f i s a l - lowed, a s a s t a t e employee, t o a c c r u e up t o 30 days annual l e a v e . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t p l a i n t i f f had taken 3 days of annual l e a v e d u r i n g t h e school y e a r and t h a t he was away from h i s job a t t e n d i n g c l a s s e s a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y f o r a p e r i o d o f time e q u i v a l e n t t o 19 working days. The c o u r t found p l a i n t i f f had used 22 days of annual l e a v e d u r i n g t h e school y e a r 1972-73, and under h i s c o n t r a c t was e n t i t l e d t o no reimbursement f o r annual l e a v e , b u t under s e c t i o n 59-1002, he was e n t i t l e d t o 8 days o f compensation f o r annual l e a v e (30 days accumulated l e a v e - 22 days u s e d ) . To f i n d p l a i n t i f f ' s d a i l y e a r n i n g s , t h e c o u r t d i v i d e d p l a i n t i f f ' s 1972-73 annual s a l a r y of $15,400 by 365, t h e number o f days i n a y e a r , which r e s u l t s i n a d a i l y r a t e of $42.19. The c o u r t m u l t i p l i e d t h e d a i l y r a t e by t h e 8 days found t o b e owing p l a i n t i f f , t o a r r i v e a t $337.52, t h e amount t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h e school d i s t r i c t owed p l a i n t i f f f o r annual l e a v e . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found p l a i n t i f f was e n t i t l e d t o 12 days s i c k l e a v e f o r 1971-72 and 12 days f o r 1972-73. The c o u r t then found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s d a i l y e a r n i n g s f o r 1971-72 was $40.00 per day. T h e r e f o r e , t h e school d i s t r i c t owed a s unused s i c k l e a v e $480 t o p l a i n t i f f f o r 1971-72, and $506.28 f o r 1972-73, f o r a t o t a l of $666.28. Under s e c t i o n 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o a lump sum payment of one-quarter of t h a t amount o r $166.47. Therefore, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h e school d i s t r i c t owed p l a i n - t i f f $337.52 a s compensation f o r annual l e a v e and $166.47 a s com- p e n s a t i o n f o r s i c k l e a v e , o r a t o t a l compensation of $503.99. The c o u r t f u r t h e r ordered t h a t each p a r t y pay i t s own a t t o r n e y f e e . P l a i n t i f f challenged t h o s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e c h a l l e n g e . The c o u r t then amended i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , f i n d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f was s t i l l e n t i t l e d t o $166.47 f o r s i c k l e a v e , b u t was e n t i t l e d t o a f u l l 30 days annual l e a v e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e days used i n t h e 1972-73 school y e a r . The c o u r t then took p l a i n t i f f ' s 1972-73 s a l a r y , found t o b e $16,400 r a t h e r than $15,400 p r e v i o u s l y used, and d i v i d e d i t by 365 days, which came t o a d a i l y r a t e of $44.93, which, mul- t i p l i e d by 30, came t o $1,347.90 t h e amount due p l a i n t i f f f o r unused annual l e a v e . The annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e t o t a l $1,514.37. From t h a t amended judgment, p l a i n t i f f and defendant school d i s t r i c t appeal. The t h r e e c o n t r a c t s between p l a i n t i f f and t h e school d i s - t r i c t were i d e n t i c a l , except f o r a y e a r l y i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y , and read : "THIS AGREEMENT between Robert S. Bitney, a Superintendent duly q u a l i f i e d t o s u p e r v i s e , a d m i n i s t e r , and t e a c h i n t h e Public Schools of Montana, P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t , and t h e Board of T r u s t e e s of Belgrade School D i s t r i c t No. 44, County of G a l l a t i n , S t a t e of Montana, P a r t y of t h e Second P a r t : "WITNESSETH THAT: P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t a g r e e s mperform t h e r e g u l a r d u t i e s of a school adminis- t r a t o r of such Second Class School d u r i n g t h e en- s u i n g y e a r beginning J u l y 1, 1972 and ending June 30, 1973: "AND T A t h e P a r t y of t h e Second P a r t f u r t h e r HT a g r e e s t o g r a n t t h e P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t , one (1) f u l l month's l e a v e from h i s school d u t i e s , w i t h f u l l remuneration, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r f u l l s i c k l e a v e allowed o t h e r t e a c h e r s i n t h e school system. 11 The q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d f o r review on appeal i s whether p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o accumulated annual l e a v e , s i c k l e a v e , a.nd a t t o r n e y f e e s . Before p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t t o accumulated annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e can b e a s c e r t a i n e d , i t f i r s t must b e determined whether h i s r i g h t t o annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e i s - m k $ c o n t r a c t u a l , o r whether he can b r i n g himself w i t h i n t h e purview of s e c t i o n 59-1002, and s e c t i o n 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, which govern annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e of an employee of t h e s t a t e , county o r c i t y . There i s no doubt M r . B i t n e y , as s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s c h o o l s , was an employee o f t h e school d i s t r i c t , and t h e r e f o r e a p u b l i c employee. S e c t i o n 59-1007, R.C.M. 1947, excludes s c h o o l t e a c h e r s from t h a t p a r t of t h e a c t allowing annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e . The q u e s t i o n then becomes -- whether o r n o t Bitney, a s school super- i n t e n d e n t , can be c l a s s i f i e d a s a school t e a c h e r . I n S t a t e ex r e l . Howard v. I r e l a n d , 114 Mont. 488, 138 P.2d 569, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t and a t e a c h e r i n m a t t e r s o f h i r i n g and d i s m i s s a l . The d i s t i n c t i o n t h e r e , however, evolved from two d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t e s f o r h i r i n g and d i s m i s s a l , one c o v e r i n g t e a c h e r s and t h e o t h e r covering superintendents. Here, t h e r e a r e n o t two d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t e s r e g u l a t i n g t h e compensation of t e a c h e r s and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s . Both a r e h i r e d on a c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e school board. The c o n t r a c t i t s e l f s t a t e s Bitney i s q u a l i f i e d t o t e a c h i n t h e school d i s t r i c t and s t a t e s he i s e n t i t l e d t o " r e g u l a r f u l l s i c k l e a v e allowed o t h e r t e a c h e r s i n t h e school system." (Emphasis ours). Such language i m p l i e s both p a r t i e s considered Bitney a school t e a c h e r . So f o r t h e purpose of i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s c o n t r a c t only, we c l a s s i f y Bitney a s a school t e a c h e r , which would make s e c t i o n s 59-1002 and 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o him. T h i s problem then a r i s e s - - t e a c h e r s , because of t h e 9 month school y e a r , do n o t r e c e i v e v a c a t i o n time. Superintendents s e r v e t h e e n t i r e y e a r , t h e r e f o r e annual l e a v e becomes a n e c e s s i t y t o t h e i r contracts. Here, Bitney c o n t r a c t e d w i t h t h e school board f o r one month's v a c a t i o n time w i t h f u l l remuneration. The c o n t r a c t i s s i l e n t a s t o accumulation and/or remuneration on t e r m i n a t i o n . There i s only one s u p e r i n t e n d e n t t o a school d i s t r i c t and t h i s problem r a r e l y a r i s e s so t h e r e i s no school d i s t r i c t p o l i c y which would a s s i s t i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t language. The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t we must look t o t h e c o n t r a c t t o determine ~ i t n e y ' sand t h e school d i s t r i c t ' s r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s . But, what s t a n d a r d should apply when t h e c o n t r a c t i s s i l e n t o r vague i n t h i s area? Does B i t n e y have a r i g h t t o compensation f o r unused v a c a t i o n time? Does he have a r i g h t t o compensation f o r unused sick leave? F i r s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n of s i c k l e a v e . plaintiff's contract explicitly s t a t e s : "AND THAT t h e p a r t y of t h e Second P a r t f u r t h e r a g r e e s t o g r a n t t h e P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t , one (1) f u l l month's l e a v e from h i s school d u t i e s , w i t h f u l l remuneration, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r f u l l s i c k l e a v e allowed o t h e r t e a c h e r s i n t h e school system." (Emphasis ours). T h e r e f o r e , we f i n d p l a i n t i f f c o n t r a c t e d f o r t h e r e g u l a r s i c k l e a v e g r a n t e d t o a l l t e a c h e r s of t h e school d i s t r i c t . The " ~ o a r d~ o l i c y / ~ e a c h e r Handbook", a book d i s t r i b u t e d t o a l l f a c u l t y members by t h e school d i s t r i c t was e n t e r e d i n t o evidence. I t s t a t e s t h i s p o l i c y of t h e school d i s t r i c t a s t o s i c k l e a v e compensation: " ( a ) Eight days of s i c k l e a v e , w i t h f u l l pay, s h a l l b e given each y e a r of c o n t r a c t employment. "(b) A t e a c h e r on c o n t r a c t may accumulate a t o t a l of f o r t y days of s i c k l e a v e d u r i n g continuous t e n u r e i n t h e Belgrade Schools. I t The book then goes on t o e x p l a i n t h e procedare i f a t e a c h e r i s s i c k and h i s o r h e r s i c k l e a v e accumulation. But no- where does i t provide f o r compensation f o r accumulated s i c k l e a v e upon t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of employment. T h e r e f o r e we f i n d t h e r e was no p o l i c y f o r compensation o f unused s i c k l e a v e by t h e school d i s - t r i c t upon t e r m i n a t i o n of employment. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding p l a i n t i f f $166.47 f o r accumulated unused s i c k l e a v e . As t o t h e annual l e a v e , t h e c o n t r a c t provides p l a i n t i f f s h a l l r e c e i v e one month's annual l e a v e w i t h f u l l remuneration. And a g a i n , t h e r e i s no school d i s t r i c t p o l i c y concerning v a c a t i o n time, and n o t h i n g mentioned i n t h e handbook f o r t e a c h e r s and superintendents. I n or&er t o i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r a c t , we f e e l compelled t o t u r n t o t h e o v e r a l l p o l i c y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e l e g i s - l a t u r e concerning annual l e a v e and i t s accumulation. Section 59-1002, R.C.M. 1947, b e f o r e amendment i n 1974, provided: 1I Annual v a c a t i o n l e a v e may be accumulated t o a t o t a l n o t t o exceed t h i r t y (30) working days. I I Since government a g e n c i e s must work w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s of a f i s c a l budget, i t i s only l o g i c a l t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e l i m i t e d t h e accumulation of annual l e a v e . That way departments of government can e s t i m a t e more p r e c i s e l y t h e annual l e a v e compensation f o r employees t e r m i n a t i n g t h e i r employment. School d i s t r i c t s must a l s o work w i t h i n budgets. They t o o , must know what t o expect i n com- p e n s a t i n g t e r m i n a t i n g employees. Here, t h e c o n t r a c t i n q u e s t i o n i s s i l e n t on t h e m a t t e r so we w i l l apply t h e same s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e "for a l l p u b l i c employees", which would e n t i t l e p l a i n t i f f t o 30 days accumulated annual l e a v e upon t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s employment w i t h t h e school d i s t r i c t . It follows t h a t we must determine how much compensation p l a i n t i f f i s t o b e paid f o r t h e 30 day annual leave. There i s no a u t h o r i t y c i t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y a s t o t h e computation which must b e used. P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t h i s annual s a l a r y should be d i v i d e d by twelve t o determine h i s monthly compensation; t h a t amount should b e d i v i d e d by 20, f o r 20 working days i n a month, t o a r r i v e a t t h e d a i l y wage; then t h a t amount should be m u l t i p l i e d by t h e number of days o f annual l e a v e allowed. Since t h e r e has been no a u t h o r i t y c i t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y t o demonstrate t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n determining t h e amount of annual l e a v e compensation by d i v i d i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s annual s a l a r y by 365 t o determine a d a i l y wage, then m u l t i p l y i n g t h e amount by t h e 30 days of annual l e a v e accumulated, t h i s Court f i n d s t h e d i s t r i c t court acted properly i n i t s determination. W f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o support t h e annual s a l a r y e f i g u r e of $16,400 f o r t h e 1972-73 school y e a r . The amount of annual s a l a r y shown on t h e f a c e of t h e 1972-73 c o n t r a c t i s $15,400. That amount d i v i d e d by 365 e s t a b l i s h e s a d a i l y r a t e of $42.92. When t h a t d a i l y r a t e i s m u l t i p l i e d by t h e 30 days of accrued l e a v e i t e q u a l s $1,287.60. This i s t h e accrued v a c a t i o n pay t h e school d i s t r i c t owes p l a i n t i f f . There i s some c o n t r o v e r s y a s t o whether o r n o t p l a i n t i f f should b e charged annual l e a v e f o r t h e t i m e taken t o a t t e n d school. The p a r t i e s were aware of t h i s arrangement a t each c o n t r a c t time and s e l e c t e d t o i g n o r e i t . The school d i s t r i c t d i d n o t q u e s t i o n t h e arrangement u n t i l t h i s l i t i g a t i o n a r o s e and i t appears t h a t p l a i n - t i f f ' s a t t e n d a n c e a t school b e n e f i t e d both p l a i n t i f f and t h e school d i s t r i c t f o r t h e t h r e e y e a r period i n q u e s t i o n . It i s much t o o l a t e now t o examine i n t o t h e arrangement and reform t h e i r mutual executed agreement. The f i n a l i s s u e f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t h e q u e s t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s . P l a i n t i f f argues he i s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s a s s e c t i o n 41-1306, R.C.M. 1947, e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s t h a t any judgment f o r wages s h a l l i n c l u d e a t t o r n e y f e e s . The school d i s t r i c t c o u n t e r s t h a t s e c t i o n 41-1301(3) (b) , R.C.M. 1947, e x p r e s s l y excludes p l a i n t i f f from r e c o v e r i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s . It provides: "'Employer' i n c l u d e s an i n d i v i d u a l , p a r t n e r s h i p , association, corporation, business t r u s t , a l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , o r any organized group of p e r s o n s , a c t i n z d i r e c t l v o r i n d i r e c t l v i n t h e i n t e r e s t of an emploTer i n r e l a t i o n t o an ekployee, b u t s h a l l n o t -7 i n c l u d e t h e United S t a t e s , s t a t e o f - ~ o n t a n a , r any o l e g a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h e r e o f . " (Emphasis o u r s ) . The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s a r e n o t r e c o v e r a b l e by s u c c e s s f u l l i t i g a n t s e i t h e r i n law o r e q u i t y , except where t h e y a r e e x p r e s s l y provided f o r by c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u t e . Roseneau Food, I n c . v. Coleman, 140 Mont. 572, 374 P.2d 87. Although s e c t i o n 41-1306, R.C.M. 1947, provides f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s i n judgments f o r wages, t h i s Court f i n d s t h a t s e c t i o n does n o t apply t o s t a t e government o r any of i t s s u b d i v i s i o n s which would i n c l u d e de- fendant school d i s t r i c t , f o r i t i s e x p r e s s l y excluded i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of employer a s above quoted i n s e c t i o n 41-1301(3)(b), R.C.M. 1947. T h e r e f o r e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y denied attorney fees t o plaintiff. That p a r t of t h e judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t i n g s i c k l e a v e t e r m i n a t i v e pay t o p l a i n t i f f i s r e v e r s e d . W e affirm t h a t p a r t of t h e judgment t h a t awarded 30 days annual l e a v e pay and denied a t t o r n e y f e e s t o p l a i n t i f f . W remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r an o r d e r c o r r e c t i n g t h e computation of annual l e a v e awarded, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinionf'" Justice / W Concur: e ................................. Justices. M r . Chief Justice James T. Harrison did not participate in this cause.