Montana labor news., 1949-09-29
Vacation Pay Is Ruled Wages
OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
RENDERED AT REQUEST OF LABOR

vas active in the Miners Union a,
the time 81 his appointment to this
position Following i, Opinion No /.
80 I'll lttorney General Olsen:
September II. 1910
Mr. Robert {. Brown
Oliri. Labor Division
Department OF Agriculture. Labor
and Industry
Helena. Montana
bear. Mr.. Brown
YOU have requested my opinion
apon the following question
|, vacation pay wages and col
lc,tible IN the same manner and i'm
Ter the same statutes a. any other
Kind oi wages"
The contract oi employment upon
which Your question IS based pro-
side, that all employees OF the COM
pans who work a total OF 400. or
more hours IN a l. month period
ending on May Isl OF each year.
are entitled to 10 hours vacation
with pay and II they have been
~ the employ OF the company less
Than IKE wears and 80 hours va
cation with pay ii they have been
III the employ oi the company 5
wears OF more.
The question has never been lit
lgatrd III the courts OF the State
81 Montana So lar as | can ascer-
tam, and therefore there IS no Mon
tana precedent upon which 10 base
an opinion a. to whether vacation
pay Is 10 be treated in the same
manner a, wages. However. thi,
question has been passed upon in
other jurisdiction, and the cases
seem 10 he IN substantial accord.
One 81 the leading cases on the
: question /, that oi In Re Willow
Caictcria>, Inc. III. Fed. (2nd) 40.
he decision is that OF the 2ud
District Court Of Appeals, the case
, arising upon appeal IRON the United
states District Court Tor the South.
; crn District oi New York. The
! Plaintiff III that case had been en-
! ploscd hy the defendant company
= under a contract which read as iol-
lows:
:, "All iull time employees who will
- have concluded SIX months en-
= ployment during the months Of June,
50 July, August. or September shall
8" be entitled TO three days vacation
~ with pay. All full time workers
who Will have completed one years
y employment during the said months
Shall be entitled 10 a weeks vaca-
tiun with pay
The defendant, business Jailed
aud the defendant, were adj Indicated
: bankrupt The employees oi the de-
lendant, III which the plaintiff was
one. we're ,ummarily discharged
HE plaintiff sued lor the one week
" vacation due him contending that
the week, vacation vas the equiva
- LEM .oi one week, wages and there
:" fore due HIM a, an expense OF ad-
- mni,tration The court found Tor
9 the plaintiff and held as follows
g IN vacation with pay is in effect
= additional wages 1t involves a
reasonable arrangement to 7ccure
r the well being 81 employees and the
y continuance 81 harmonious relations
Y, between employer and employee.
1 NII ..I.r-,. ,~ ~.
/" Ia PAY ior a weeks vacation had
= been furnished. that IS to say. one
N wears service had been rendered
= prior 10 June, 50 that one week /,
vacation with pay was completely
- earned and only the time OF re
rs ewing II was postponed. Ii the
r" employer had discharged the EN-
ploAcr |wrongiully alter the latter
had done the work necessary &c
" earn a vacation he could not be
So deprived ~ the benefits due him
ihe The Willow Cafeteria case ha
been followed, approved and con.
urmed IN the following late cases
4, IN Re Public adger, lol Fed. End
we ~, Division Of Labor Law Enforce
are meat state 81 California IS. Samp
100 sell. ~ Fed C1ndl 400. In X
hat capital Foundry Corporation. 3
he, Fed supp. S2 In Re Kinney .Alu
I'M minum Co., Is Fed Supp. sos.
lcd The question OF whether vaca
ton pay should be considered a
,k- wages which are a subject for ar
,i,t bitrailon under a collective bargain
lid- iue agreement was considered i
ana ,lr ga>c Of Brampton Wooden Co
" s. Local Union ll2. oil A. end
We New hampshire 30, the coul
ing holding as follows
that W. believe that ordinary men
any the position OF these individual d,
sue. iendant, would have thought OF "a
.du- oat-ln nay a. part OF their pay {
Viii Wages and no reason appears VIII
III the same meaning should have bee
equally plain 10 their employe
There can be little doubt that worl
on er> generally consider the mon.
ibel. which comes to them as a result
ally their laborS. whether it be regul;
abel pay, overtime or vacation pay, as
DIS part OF their wages and courts ha
lade recognized this TACT"
ring | have not found authority co
a trary to the cases above cited. viii
abel holds that vacation pay shall
rests considered TO be wages. In view
ants the unanimity and weight OF I
n on authorities ! believe the rule in Mo
tana should follow the decisions a
reasoning in the above cited cas-
Therefore it is my opinion Il
abor vacation pay which has been earn
IS due and owing must be cons
cred in the same category as VA
and is collectible in the same m,
urr and under IN sawn~ sH>Hr>>.