No. 81477
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982
STANLEY L. CELMER,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
VS.
LLOYD SCHMITT d/b/a STANFORD MEATS,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Judith Basin
Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Craig R. Buehler, Mt. Legal Services, Lewistown,
Montana
For Respondent:
Lloyd Schmitt, Pro Se, Stanford, Montana
Submitted on briefs: March 25, 1982
Decided: May 20, 1982
Filed: MAY 20 1982
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
This appeal arises from a ruling by the District
Court of the Tenth Judicial District of the State of
Montana, i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y o f J u d i t h B a s i n , d i s a l l o w i n g
S t a n l e y C e l m e r ' s wage c l a i m a g a i n s t L l o y d S c h m i t t . Celmer's
m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l and m o t i o n t o amend t h e j u d g m e n t were
d e n i e d , and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d .
C e l m e r w a s h i r e d by S c h m i t t a t a s a l a r y o f $ 1 , 0 0 0 p e r
month t o l e a r n meat c u t t i n g and t o manage t h e meat c u t t i n g
operat ion of Schmitt ' s a g r i c u l t u r a l business. Schmitt a l s o
p r o v i d e d Celmer w i t h a h o u s e , r e n t f r e e , and a $50 p e r month
m e a t a l l o w a n c e , w h i c h was l a t e r i n c r e a s e d t o $ 5 5 p e r month.
The r e n t a l v a l u e o f t h e h o u s e was d e t e r m i n e d t o b e $225 p e r
month.
The Schmitt business is an integrated livestock,
g r a i n and meat production e n t e r p r i s e , and h a s b e e n c l a s s i -
f i e d as a n a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e b y b o t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
Department of L a b o r and t h e S t a t e o f Montana D e p a r t m e n t o f
L a b o r and I n d u s t r y . As an a g r i c u l t u r a l laborer, Celmer was
hired t o work up t o t e n h o u r s a d a y f o r u s u a l l y f i v e a n d
one-half d a y s a week. He was advised prior t o employment
t h a t h e would be a n a g r i c u l t u r a l w o r k e r , t o which h e a g r e e d .
C e l m e r worked f o r S c h m i t t from A p r i l 9, 1980, until
t h e m o r n i n g o f December 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 . When h e q u i t , h e d i d n o t
provide any notice to Schmitt. According to Celmer's
records, h e worked 1 3 5 h o u r s o f o v e r t i m e d u r i n g h i s employ-
ment w i t h S c h m i t t and was n o t c o m p e n s a t e d f o r them.
Celmer presents several issues f o r review; however,
there is b u t one substantial issue: Did Schmitt fail to
f u l l y compensate C e l m e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment?
The District Court concluded that. the contract of
employment excluded overtime payments because Celmer was
compensated by salary and allowance for rent and meat.
Therefore, the court ruled t h e r e w a s a f a i l u r e on C e l m e r ' s
p a r t t o p r o v e t h a t any wages were d u e .
We have reviewed the record and find that there is
sufficient credible evidence to support the findings and
c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . J e n s e n v. Jensen (1981),
- Mont.. , 629 P.2d 7 6 5 , 38 S t . R e p . 927.
Celmer' s contention that h e w a s not. a n a g r i c u l t u r a l
w o r k e r a s d e f i n e d by P l o u f f e v . Farm and Ranch E q u i p m e n t Co.
(1977), 174 Mont. 313, 570 P.2d 1106, and is thereby
deserving of o v e r t i m e wages pursuant. t o sect i o n 39-3-405,
MCA, is w i t - h o u t m e r i t . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s h e was h i r e d wit-h
t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g he would be a n a g r i c u l t u r a l e m p l o y e e and
would have to perform any function required of him from
S c h m i t t ' s l i v e s t o c k , g r a i n and m e a t p r o d u c t i o n e n t e r p r i s e .
Further, Plouffe dealt with an individual who was
working a s a mechanic s e r v i c i n g farm equipment. T h e r e is a
dist-inction in the law between these t.wo. It has been
generally held that service type of work is excluded from
the agricultural e x c e p t i o n w h i l e meat cutting and related
l i v e s t o c k work i s n o t . 56 C.J.S. Master and S e r v a n t , 5 151.
In any e v e n t , a n e m p l o y e e would be e s t o p p e d from c l a i m i n g
c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r o v e r t i m e work w h e r e h e f a i l e d t o r e p o r t i t
o r t o inform h i s employer t h a t he expected compensation f o r
it u n t i l he i n s t i t u t e d s u i t a f t e r h i s d i s c h a r g e . Herman v.
G o l d e n Arrow D a i r y ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 1 9 1 Wash. 927, 7 1 P.2d 581.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
We concur: