Title: CELMER v SCHMITT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-477
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 20, 1982

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 M r . 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. T h i s a p p e a l arises from a r u l i n g by t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of J u d i t h Basin, 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 Lloyd Schmitt . C e l m e r ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l and motion t o amend t h e judgment 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 of $1,000 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 o p e r a t i o n o f Schmitt ' s a g r i c u l t u r a l b u s i n e s s . S c h m i t t a l s o provided Celmer w i t h a house, r e n t f r e e , and a $50 p e r month meat a l l o w a n c e , which was l a t e r i n c r e a s e d t o $55 p e r month. The r e n t a l v a l u e of t h e house was determined t o b e $225 p e r month. The S c h m i t t b u s i n e s s is an i n t e g r a t e d l i v e s t o c k , g r a i n and meat p r o d u c t i o n e n t e r p r i s e , and h a s been 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 by b o t h t h e United S t a t e s Department of Labor and t h e S t a t e of Montana Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y . A s a n a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r , C e l m e r w a s h i r e d to work up to t e n h o u r s a day f o r u s u a l l y f i v e and one-half d a y s a week. H e w a s a d v i s e d p r i o r t o employment t h a t he would be an a g r i c u l t u r a l worker, t o which he a g r e e d . C e l m e r worked f o r Schmitt from A p r i l 9, 1980, u n t i l t h e morning of December 10, 1980. When he q u i t , he d i d n o t p r o v i d e any n o t i c e t o S c h m i t t . According t o C e l m e r ' s r e c o r d s , he worked 135 h o u r s of 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 compensated f o r them. C e l m e r p r e s e n t s s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r review; however, t h e r e is but one s u b s t a n t i a l i s s u e : Did Schmitt f a i l 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 D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded that. t h e c o n t r a c t of employment excluded o v e r t i m e payments because C e l m e r w a s compensated by s a l a r y and allowance f o r r e n t and meat. T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o u r t r u l e d 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 to prove t h a t any wages were due. W e have reviewed t h e r e c o r d and f i n d t h a t t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e District Court. J e n s e n v. J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont.. , 629 P.2d 765, 38 St.Rep. 927. - C e l m e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he w a s not. an a g r i c u l t u r a l worker a s d e f i n e d by P l o u f f e v. Farm and Ranch Equipment Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 313, 570 P.2d 1106, and is t h e r e b y d e s e r v i n g of o v e r t i m e wages pursuant. t o sect i o n 39-3-405, MCA, is wit-hout m e r i t . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s he 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 an a g r i c u l t u r a l employee and would have t o perform any f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e d o f 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 meat p r o d u c t i o n e n t e r p r i s e . F u r t h e r , P l o u f f e d e a l t w i t h an i n d i v i d u a l who w a s working a s a mechanic s e r v i c i n g farm equipment. There is a d i s t - i n c t i o n i n t h e l a w between t h e s e t.wo. It h a s been g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t s e r v i c e t y p e o f work is excluded from t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l e x c e p t i o n w h i l e meat c u t t i n g and r e l a t e d l i v e s t o c k work is n o t . 56 C.J.S. Master and S e r v a n t , 5 151. I n any e v e n t , an employee would be e s t o p p e d from c l a i m i n g compensation f o r o v e r t i m e work where he 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. Golden Arrow Dairy ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 191 Wash. 927, 71 P.2d 581. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court is a f f i r m e d . We concur: