Case Title: BRD OF BARBERS v BIG SKY COLLEGE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-397

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 88-397 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 THE BOARD OF BARBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Appellant, VS. BIG SKY COLLEGE OF BARBER-STYLING, INC., a Montana Corporation, Petitioner and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Roger Tippy, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Ellingson and Lovitt, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 25, 1981 Decided : APR 2 4 1981 qJd-Hw Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The sole i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e is t h e v a l i d i t y of an admi- n i s t r a t i v e r u l e of t h e Board of Barbers r e q u i r i n g a y e a r ' s a p p r e n t i c e s h i p served i n a commercial barbershop p r i o r to exami- n a t i o n and l i c e n s i n g a s a b a r b e r . The D i s t r i c t Court h e l d t h e r u l e i n v a l i d . W e af f i r m . I n October, 1979, Big Sky College asked t h e Board of B a r b e r s i f C l a r e Delaney, a r e c e n t g r a d u a t e , could t e a c h a t t h e c o l l e g e and q u a l i f y t h a t t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t y a s an a p p r e n t i c e s h i p f o r t h e purpose of examination and l i c e n s i n g a s a b a r b e r . The Board t r e a t e d t h i s r e q u e s t a s a p e t i t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g under t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t (MAPA) . Following a h e a r i n g , t h e Board r u l e d t h a t t h e t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t y could count f o r h a l f a y e a r ' s a p p r e n t i c e s h i p provided t h e o t h e r h a l f y e a r was s e r v e d i n a commercial barbershop. Big Sky College p e t i t i o n e d f o r j u d i c i a l review of t h a t r u l i n g . The District Court of Missoula County h e l d t h e r u l e i n v a l i d and awarded summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e College. The Board h a s appealed t h i s judgment to t h i s Court. The p a r t i e s have s t i p u l a t e d t h a t C l a r e Delaney w i l l r e t a i n h e r l i c e n s e r e g a r d l e s s of t h e outcome of t h i s a p p e a l . Thus it is o n l y t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e r u l e a s i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e Board t h a t is t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s a p p e a l . The r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s : "On completion of 1 y e a r of a p p r e n t i c e s h i p under t h e immediate p e r s o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n of a l i c e n s e d b a r b e r , an a p p r e n t i c e must a p p l y to t h e d e p a r t - ment to t a k e t h e examination f o r a b a r b e r ' s cer- t i f i c a t e of r e g i s t r a t i o n . " S e c t i o n 37-30-305, MCA. An a p p r e n t i c e is s t a t u t o r i l y d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s : "An ' a p p r e n t i c e ' , under t h i s c h a p t e r , is a per- s o n who r e c e i v e s i n s t r u c t i o n i n an approved b a r b e r s c h o o l or c o l l e g e and from a b a r b e r a u t h o r i z e d to p r a c t i c e b a r b e r i n g i n t h i s s t a t e .I1 S e c t i o n 37-30-101 ( 2 ) , MCA. The Board's r u l e a t i s s u e h e r e p r o v i d e s : "Every a p p r e n t i c e must s e r v e one normal work y e a r , or its e q u i v a l e n t a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e b o a r d , as an a p p r e n t i c e b e f o r e he can t a k e t h e b a r b e r examination." S e c t i o n 40-3.18 ( 6 ) - S 1 8 6 0 ( 3 ) MAC. The Board a r g u e s t h a t it h a s a u t h o r i t y to adopt r u l e s f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g a s t a t u t o r y g r a n t of power, c i t i n g s e c t i o n 37-30-203(2), MCA; it c o n t e n d s t h a t its r u l e i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y term "one y e a r of a p p r e n t i c e s h i p " f a l l s w i t h i n i t s a u t h o r i t y where t h e l e g i s l a t u r e gave no guidance as to its meaning. The Board u r g e s us t o a p p l y t h e M A P A s t a n d a r d of " r e a s o n a b l e n e c e s s i t y t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e purpose of t h e s t a t u t e " i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of its r u l e , c i t i n g s e c t i o n s 2-4-305(4), ( 5 ) , and 2-4-506(1) and ( 2 ) , MCA. The Board critici- z e s r e c e n t Montana cases as developing a common law i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , a p p e l l a n t c r i t i c i z e s t h e f o l l o w i n g language i n B e l l v. Dept. o f P r o f e s s i o n a l and O c c u p a t i o n a l L i c e n s i n g (1979 ) , Mont . , 594 P.2d 331, 36 "The c o u r t s have u n i f o r m l y h e l d t h a t a d m i n i s t r a - t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s are ' o u t of harmony' w i t h l e g i s l a t i v e g u i d e l i n e s i f t h e y ( 1) 'engraf t a d d i t i o n a l and c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s on t h e s t a t u t e ' ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; or ( 2 ) i f they e n g r a f t a d d i t i o n a l , noncontrad i c t o r y r e q u i r e - ments on t h e s t a t u t e which were n o t e n v i s i o n e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . Arizona S t . Bd. of Funeral Directors v. Perlman ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 108 A r i z . 33, 492 P.2d 694." The Board c o n t e n d s t h e second B e l l test above is i n a c c u r a t e and s h o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d . W e a g r e e t h a t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e Board 's r u l e i n t h i s case t h e M A P A t e s t of " r e a s o n a b l e n e c e s s i t y to e f f e c t u a t e t h e purpose of t h e s t a t u t e " should be a p p l i e d . The s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y so p r o v i d e s : "Whenever by t h e e x p r e s s o r implied terms of any s t a t u t e a state agency h a s a u t h o r i t y t o adopt r u l e s t o implement, i n t e r p r e t , make s p e c i f i c , or o t h e r w i s e c a r r y o u t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e , no r u l e adopted is v a l i d or e f f e c t i v e u n l e s s c o n s i s t e n t and n o t i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e s t a t u t e and r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e purpose -- o f t h e s t a t u t e ." ( ~ m p L s i s added .) S e c t i o n 2-4-305(5), MCA. W e d i s a g r e e t h a t r e c e n t Montana cases have adopted a d i f - f e r e n t s t a n d a r d o r have developed a common l a w i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s . The language c r i t i c i z e d by t h e Board i n B e l l a r t i - c u l a t e s t h e t w o r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 2-4-305 ( 5 ) , MCA, quoted i n t h e p r e c e d i n g paragraph. I n B e l l we h e l d an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e of t h e Board of Barbers i n v a l i d which r e q u i r e d t h e success- f u l p a s s i n g of an i n s t r u c t o r ' s examination f o r l i c e n s i n g as a b a r b e r i n s t r u c t o r i n t h e f a c e of a s t a t u t e t h a t r e q u i r e d o n l y 1 0 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e and a c h a r a c t e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S t a t e ex rel. Swart v. Casne e t a l . ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 302, 564 P.2d 983, s t r u c k down a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s of t h e Department of Community Af f a i r s t h a t were i n c o n f l i c t w i t h Montana's S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g A c t . W e i n v a l i d a t e d an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e of t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s t h a t r e q u i r e d a p p l i c a t i o n f o r b e n e f i t s w i t h i n 5 d a y s a f t e r r e c e i p t of medical care because t h e r u l e d i d n o t e f f e c t u a t e t h e purpose of t h e s t a t u t e , v i z . p r o v i d i n g a i d to t h e i n d i g e n t . Michels v. Dept. o f S o c i a l and Rehabil- i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 609 P.2d 271, 37 St.Rep. 546. C o n t r a r y t o a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n , t h e s e r e c e n t Montana cases have c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d t h e M A P A s t a n d a r d s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s adopted by s t a t e a g e n c i e s . W e a p p l y t h e same M A P A s t a n d a r d s i n t h i s case. Here t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s a y e a r of a p p r e n t i c e s h i p served "under t h e imme- d i a t e p e r s o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n of a l i c e n s e d b a r b e r " i n o r d e r t o q u a l i f y f o r examination and l i c e n s i n g as a b a r b e r . The B o a r d ' s r u l e r e q u i r e s an a p p r e n t i c e to s e r v e "one normal work y e a r , o r its e q u i v a l e n t a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e board" b e f o r e a p e r s o n becomes e l i g i b l e f o r e x a m i n a t i o n and l i c e n s i n g as a b a r b e r . I 1 N o r m a l work year" as i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e Board under its r u l e means an a p p r e n t i c e s h i p served i n a commercial barbershop s e t t i n g , w h i l e t h e s t a t u t e simply r e q u i r e s a y e a r ' s a p p r e n t i c e - s h i p served "under t h e immediate p e r s o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n of a l i c e n s e d barber." Thus t h e Board's r u l e e n g r a f t s an a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t on a p p r e n t i c e s h i p not contained i n t h e s t a t u t e . In o u r view, t h i s a d d i t i o n a l requirement t h a t a p p r e n t i c e s h i p be s e r v e d i n a commercial barbershop does not s a t i s f y t h e test of " r e a s o n a b l e n e c e s s i t y to e f f e c t u a t e t h e purpose of t h e s t a t u t e , " s e c t i o n 2-4-305(5), MCA, v i z . r e q u i r i n g a p e r i o d of t r a i n i n g p r i o r t o q u a l i f y i n g f o r examination and l i c e n s i n g a s a b a r b e r . I t e n g r a f t s a d d i t i o n a l , n o n c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s on appren- t i c e s h i p p r o h i b i t e d by B e l l and Michels. W e hold t h e r u l e a s i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e Board i n v a l i d . Af f irmed. Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: