No. 14274
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
STAN DODD,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
THE CITY OF EAST HELENA, a Montana
Corporation, and JOHN VERBANAC, the
Mayor of East Helena,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Jackson and Kelley, Helena, Montana
For Respondents:
Luxan, Murfitt, Davis and Cosgrove, Helena, Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
Keller, Reynolds & Drake, Helena, Montana
Submitted on briefs: January 29, 1979
Decided ~ i ~ , i i
- 1979
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
T h i s i s an a p p e a l by S t a n Dodd, a former policeman i n
t h e C i t y o f E a s t Helena, County of Lewis and C l a r k , Montana,
from a r u l i n g o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t he w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o o v e r t i m e
compensation a s a policeman of a t h i r d c l a s s c i t y . The
i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether o r n o t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t policemen of t h i r d c l a s s c i t i e s a r e n o t
e n t i t l e d t o o v e r t i m e compensation.
A p p e l l a n t was employed a s a policeman f o r t h e C i t y of
E a s t Helena, Montana, from J a n u a r y 1, 1975, t o May 1 9 , 1977.
Appellant has a l l e g e d t h a t during t h i s period he r e g u l a r l y
worked o v e r t i m e w i t h o u t any reimbursement. The C i t y of E a s t
Helena a d m i t s t h a t i t d i d n o t pay any o v e r t i m e t o a p p e l l a n t
d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of h i s employment. The i s s u e on a p p e a l
i n v o l v e s t h e s o l e q u e s t i o n of whether o r n o t policemen of
t h i r d c l a s s c i t i e s a r e e n t i t l e d t o o v e r t i m e compensation.
I n 1971 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d t h e Minimum Wages and
Hours A c t which was c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n 41-2301, e t seq.,
R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 39-3-401 e t s e q . MCA, which became
e f f e c t i v e J u l y 1, 1971. I n conformity with t h e provisions
o f t h e a c t , t h e Commissioner of Labor i s s u e d , on J u l y 1,
1971, i n i t i a l r e g u l a t i o n s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e
Minimum Wage Act. R e q u e s t was made o f t h e Commissioner by
t h e Montana P o l i c e A s s o c i a t i o n as t o whether policemen w e r e
c o v e r e d by t h e a c t and e n t i t l e d t o o v e r t i m e compensation.
The Commissioner by l e t t e r responded i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e .
On J u l y 27, 1971, a p e t i t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment
was f i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t i n Cause No. 12100, e n t i t l e d t h e
C i t y o f B i l l i n g s and Yellowstone County v . The Honorable S i d
Smith, Commissioner of Labor of t h e S t a t e of Montana.
Numerous i s s u e s w e r e r a i s e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e
v a l i d i t y and c o v e r a g e o f t h e Minimum Wage A c t . The p e t i t i o n
a l l e g e d (1) t h a t t h e a c t was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and v o i d , and
( 2 ) t h a t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , f i r e m e n , and d e p u t y s h e r i f f s were
e x c l u d e d from t h e p r o v i s i o n s t h e r e i n on t h e grounds t h a t
e a c h was a p r o f e s s i o n a l . This Court accepted o r i g i n a l
j u r i s d i c t i o n and i s s u e d i t s o p i n i o n on October 29, 1971.
C i t y o f B i l l i n g s v. Smith ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 197, 490 P.2d
221. The a c t w a s d e t e r m i n e d t o b e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , b u t w e
h e l d t h a t policemen were bona f i d e p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e r e b y
exempt from i t s p r o v i s i o n s .
By r e a s o n of t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e 1973 l e g i s l a -
t u r e amended t h e M u n i c i p a l P o l i c e Act by enactment of s e c -
t i o n 11-1832.2, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 7-32-4119 MCA,
which p r o v i d e s :
"Members o f t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t s of c i t i e s of
t h e f i r s t and second c l a s s , e x c e p t t h o s e o f f i c e r s
h o l d i n g t h e r a n k of c a p t a i n o r above, a r e e n t i t l e d
t o compensation f o r o v e r t i m e a s p r o v i d e d under
s e c t i o n 41-2303 ( b ) ."
The B i l l i n g s d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h i s C o u r t was n o t l i m i t e d
i n any way t o t h e policcimen working i n c i t i e s of any s p e c i f i c
size. On t h e c o n t r a r y , f o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e
o p i n i o n , t h e y a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o policemen working i n any
c i t y o r town i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana. In fact, the legisla-
t i v e t r e a t m e n t of policemen r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e o p i n i o n i s
c o n t a i n e d i n what i s known a s t h e M u n i c i p a l P o l i c e A c t ,
s e c t i o n 11-1801, e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 7-32-4101
e t s e q . MCA, which p r o v i d e s t h e b a s i c g u i d e l i n e s f o r a l l
c i t i e s and towns f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of
t h e i r p o l i c e departments.
A s a r e s u l t of t h e B i l l i n g s d e c i s i o n , no policemen i n
Montana w e r e e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e any o v e r t i m e compensation.
A s noted, t h e 1973 l e g i s l a t i v e assembly amended t h e P o l i c e
A c t by a d d i n g s e c t i o n 11-1832.2, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 7-
32-4119 MCA. According t o t h e amendment, t h o s e policemen i n
f i r s t and second c l a s s c i t i e s became e n t i t l e d t o o v e r t i m e
compensation. The d e c i s i o n i n B i l l i n g s a p p l i e d t o a l l
policemen. The e f f e c t o f s e c t i o n 11-1832.2 was t h a t t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e overruled the B i l l i n g s decision only a s it
a p p l i e d t o policemen i n f i r s t and second c l a s s c i t i e s .
C o n s e q u e n t l y , policemen employed by c i t i e s o f t h e t h i r d
c l a s s w e r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e o v e r t i m e compensation.
The d e c i s i o n o f t h i s C o u r t h a s n o t been changed by t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e o r by t h i s C o u r t . A l l t h e arguments of a p p e l -
l a n t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , t h e s t a t e of t h e l a w a t t h i s t i m e i s
t h a t while t h e B i l l i n g s d e c i s i o n a p p l i e d t o a l l policemen,
t h e r e i s a s p e c i a l a c t which now s e g r e g a t e s t h i r d c l a s s c i t y
policemen.
S u b i s s u e ( a ) s e t f o r t h by a p p e l l a n t i s whether t h e
B i l l i n a s d e c i s i o n c o n t a i n s a n i n h e r e n t c o n f l i c t which must
b e a d d r e s s e d by t h i s C o u r t . Appellant argues t h a t t h e r e i s
c o n f l i c t i n t h e r e a s o n i n g o f t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n which must
be c l a r i f i e d . H e a r g u e s t h a t " [ I ] £ policemen are e x c l u d e d
from t h e Minimum Wages A c t , t h e n t h e r e c a n b e no c o n f l i c t
between t h e Minimum Wage Act and S e c t i o n 25-604. This
i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d and c l a r i f i e d by
t h e Honorable Supreme C o u r t of t h e S t a t e of Montana." The
c o n t r a d i c t i o n which a p p e l l a n t a d d r e s s e s d o e s n o t e x i s t .
The B i l l i n g s c a s e h e l d t h a t policemen were e x c l u d e d
from t h e t e r m s of t h e a c t b e c a u s e of t h e i r s e p a r a t e t r e a t -
ment under t h e t e r m s o f t h e ~ u n i c i p a lP o l i c e A c t , C h a p t e r
1 8 , T i t l e 11. The s t a t u t e r e f e r r e d t o by a p p e l l a n t , s e c t i o n
25-604, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 7-4-2505 and -2402 MCA,
r e l a t e s o n l y t o compensation f o r d e p u t y s h e r i f f s . This
C o u r t i n f i n d i n g t h a t a d e p u t y s h e r i f f was e x c l u d e d r e f e r r e d
t o a c o n f l i c t between t h e s p e c i f i c s t a t u t e (25-604) s p e c i -
f y i n g t h e i r pay and t h e g e n e r a l s t a t u t e , t h e Minimum Wage
Act, and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of which s t a t u t e would g o v e r n .
T h a t d i s c u s s i o n had n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r
f i n d i n g t h a t policemen w e r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s . W e f i n d no
c o n f l i c t i n t h e o p i n i o n which r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n .
Appellant next addresses h i s subissue ( b ) concerning
t h e e f f e c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s enactment o f s e c t i o n 1 -
1
1832.2, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 7-32-4119 MCA. Appellant
a r g u e s t h a t t h e o m i s s i o n o f policemen of t h i r d c l a s s c i t i e s
from t h e s t a t u t e w a s a m i s t a k e and t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d
c o r r e c t same. H e s t a t e s t h a t " t h e r e f o r e , it i s q u i t e evi-
d e n t t h a t t h e i n s e r t i o n o f f i r s t and second c l a s s c i t i e s i n
t h e above a c t w a s e i t h e r a d r a f t i n g e r r o r o r i n s e r t e d s i m p l y
t h r o u g h t h e i g n o r a n c e of t h e p o s s i b l e consequences." The
argument t h a t t h i s e x c l u s i o n was " s c r i v e n e r ' s e r r o r " on t h e
p a r t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e r e q u e s t t h a t t h i s C o u r t
rewrite t h e s t a t u t e t o i n s e r t t h i r d c l a s s c i t i e s w i t h i n i t s
p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n no c i t a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t s u c h
a n a c t i o n by t h i s C o u r t .
W e have h e l d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h i s C o u r t
c a n n o t r e w r i t e s t a t u t e s t o o m i t what p a r t i e s f e e l s h o u l d b e
o m i t t e d o r i n s e r t what p a r t i e s f e e l s h o u l d b e i n s e r t e d . In
a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n , Mont. D e p a r t . of Rev. v . Am. S m e l t i n g &
Refining (1977), Mon t . , 567 P.2d 901, 905-06, 34
St.Rep. 597, 602, t h e C o u r t s a i d :
"The f u n c t i o n o f t h e Supreme C o u r t when con-
s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e i s s i m p l y t o a s c e r t a i n and
d e c l a r e what i s i n s u b s t a n c e s t a t e d t h e r e i n , and
n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d o r t o o m i t
what h a s been i n s e r t e d . (Citations omitted. )
The fundamental r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n
i s t h a t t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o n t r o l s .
( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) Where t h e i n t e n t of t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d from t h e p l a i n
meaning of t h e words u s e d , t h e c o u r t s may n o t
go f u r t h e r and a p p l y any o t h e r means of i n t e r -
pretation. . ."
S e e a l s o M a t t e r o f E s t a t e of B a i e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont . I
567 P.2d 943, 34 St.Rep. 860; Myers v . 4 B ' s R e s t a u r a n t ,
Inc. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 1 5 9 , 561 P.2d 1331, 34 St.Rep. 187;
L e s t e r v . J. & S. I n v e s t m e n t Company ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 149,
557 P.2d 299, 33 St.Rep. 1104; S t a t e e x r e l . Nawd's T.V. &
App. I n c . v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 456, 543 P.2d
Applying t h e s e r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n sup-
p o r t s t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no m i s t a k e on t h e p a r t
of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . I t s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned c i t i e s of
f i r s t and second c l a s s o n l y and f a i l e d t o mention c i t i e s of
t h i r d c l a s s o r towns. W a r e bound by t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e o f
e
statutory construction: ". . . It i s a r u l e of s t a t u t o r y
c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e e x p r e s s mention of one m a t t e r e x c l u d e s
o t h e r s i m i l a r m a t t e r s n o t mentioned. . ." Helena V a l l e y
I r r . D i s t . v . S t a t e Highway Comrn'n ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 150 Mont. 192,
I t was a l s o n o t e d i n t h e above e n t i t l e d c a s e t h a t t h e r e
i s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a c t s knowing f u l l w e l l
t h e f a c t s e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e e n a c t m e n t of t h e
legislation. " I t i s a l s o a r u l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n
t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a c t e d w i t h f u l l knowledge and informa-
t i o n a s t o t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r and e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n -
c l u d i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a c e d on p r e v i o u s law by t h e
e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s a c t i n g under i t . . ." 150 Mont. a t 1 9 9 ,
The l e g i s l a t u r e o b v i o u s l y was aware o f t h e B i l l i n g s
d e c i s i o n when i t amended t h e a c t t o i n c l u d e policemen of
f i r s t and second c l a s s c i t i e s and knew f u l l w e l l o f t h e
e f f e c t o f t h i s a c t and i n t e n d e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o l i m i t i t
t o t h e l a r g e r c i t i e s and t o e x c l u d e t h e smaller c i t i e s .
A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e enactment o f s e c t i o n 11-1832.2
repealed the B i l l i n g s decision. W e do n o t a g r e e . A l l that
w a s done was t o p r o v i d e c e r t a i n policemen w i t h o v e r t i m e
compensation. The e f f e c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n d i d n o t . - a f f e c t
t h e s t a t u s o f policemen i n t h i r d c l a s s c i t i e s , and t h e y a r e
s t i l l bound by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e B i l l i n g s d e c i s i o n . It
i s a l e g i s l a t i v e m a t t e r t o d e c i d e whether o r n o t policemen
of t h i r d c l a s s c i t i e s and towns a r e t o b e g i v e n o v e r t i m e
compensation.
A p p e l l a n t t h e n r a i s e s t h e i s s u e of whether s e c t i o n 11-
1832.2 v i o l a t e s t h e r i g h t s o f policemen i n t h i r d c l a s s
c i t i e s by denying them o v e r t i m e . T h i s i s s u e of u n c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l i t y of t h e t r e a t m e n t of policemen o f t h i r d c l a s s c i t i e s
w a s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . No a t t e m p t was
made by a p p e l l a n t t o s e r v e t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l of t h e S t a t e
o f Montana. W e hold, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e i s s u e i s n o t prop-
e r l y before t h i s Court.
T h i s C o u r t i n Johnson v. Doran ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 501,
511, 540 P.2d 306, s t a t e d , "As t o Doran's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t
s e c t i o n 6 6 - 1 9 4 0 ( c ) , R.C.M. 1947, i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h i s
i s s u e was r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . This Court
h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y r u l e d t h a t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e i s waived
i f not presented a t the earliest opportunity. . ." See a l s o
C l o n t z v . C l o n t z ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 206, 531 P.2d 1003; Union
I n t e r c h a n g e , I n c . v . A l l e n ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 140 Mont. 227, 370 P.2d
492; Rule 38, M.R.App.Civ.P.
The d e c i s i o n 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 .
W e concur:
L/
c J T A & .
ustices