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. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This appeal arises from a ruling by the District 

Court of the Tenth Judicial District of the State of 

Montana, in and for the County of Judith Basin, disallowing 

Stanley Celmer's wage claim against Lloyd Schmitt . Celmer's 

motion for a new trial and motion to amend the judgment were 

denied, and this appeal followed. 

Celmer was hired by Schmitt at a salary of $1,000 per 

month to learn meat cutting and to manage the meat cutting 

operat ion of Schmitt ' s agricultural business. Schmitt also 

provided Celmer with a house, rent free, and a $50 per month 

meat allowance, which was later increased to $55 per month. 

The rental value of the house was determined to be $225 per 

month. 

The Schmitt business is an integrated livestock, 

grain and meat production enterprise, and has been classified as an agricultural enterprise by both the United States 

Department of Labor and the State of Montana Department of 

Labor and Industry. As an agricultural laborer, Celmer was 

hired to work up to ten hours a day for usually five and 

one-half days a week. He was advised prior to employment 

that he would be an agricultural worker, to which he agreed. 

Celmer worked for Schmitt from April 9, 1980, until 

the morning of December 10, 1980. When he quit, he did not 

provide any notice to Schmitt. According to Celmer ' s 

records, he worked 135 hours of overtime during his employment with Schmitt and was not compensated for them. 

Celmer presents several issues for review; however, 

there is but one substantial issue: Did Schmitt fail to 

fully compensate Celmer during the course of his 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 there was a failure on Celmer's 

part to prove that any wages were due. 

We have reviewed the record and find that there is 

sufficient credible evidence to support the findings and 

conclusions of the District Court. Jensen v. Jensen (1981), 

- Mont.. , 629 P.2d 765, 38 St.Rep. 927. 

Celmer' s contention that he was not. an agricultural 

worker as defined by Plouffe v. Farm and Ranch Equipment Co. 

(1977), 174 Mont. 313, 570 P.2d 1106, and is thereby 

deserving of overtime wages pursuant. to sect ion 39-3-405, 

MCA, is wit-hout merit. The record reveals he was hired wit-h 

the understanding he would be an agricultural employee and 

would have to perform any function required of him from 

Schmitt's livestock, grain and meat production enterprise. 

Further, Plouffe dealt with an individual who was 

working as a mechanic servicing farm equipment. There 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 exception while meat cutting and related 

livestock work is not. 56 C.J.S. Master and Servant, 5 151. 

In any event, an employee would be estopped from claiming 

compensation for overtime work where he failed to report it 

or to inform his employer that he expected compensation for 

it until he instituted suit after his discharge. Herman v. 

Golden Arrow Dairy (1937), 191 Wash. 927, 71 P.2d 581. 

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 
We concur: