Title: BITNEY v SCHOOL DIST NO 44
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12878
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 29, 1975

No. 12878 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1975 ROBERT S. BITNEY, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - S C H O O L DISTRICT NO. 44 e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : C. W. Jones argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Donald E. White argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: March 4, 1975 Decided : ,, ; ,. ,,~ d , - , , "- F i l e d : ' M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from an amended judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Gallatin County, awarding p l a i n t i f f $166.47 i n s i c k leave, and $1,347.90 i n annual leave a s compensation upon termination of h i s employment a s superintendent of schools f o r School D i s t r i c t No. 44, Gallatin County. P l a i n t i f f Robert S. Bitney was hired by defendant school d i s t r i c t a s school superintendent f o r the school years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73, under three separate written contracts of employment. Defendant school d i s t r i c t a t a board meeting held on January 9, 1974, resolved t o terminate p l a i n t i f f ' s employment with t h e school d i s t r i c t a t the expiration of h i s contract f o r t h a t school year. Upon completion of t h e school year, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a claim with the school board f o r $4,537.93 f o r 75 days of unused annual leave; $513.34 f o r 34 days of unused sick leave; and $144.28 f o r fringe benefits. P l a i n t i f f arrived a t these figures by dividing h i s yearly salary by 12 f o r a monthly s a l a r y figure; divided t h a t figure by 20, the average number of working days per month, f o r a d a i l y r a t e of pay. He followed t h a t procedure f o r each year he was employed by the school d i s t r i c t ; then multiplied the r e s u l t i n g figure by t h e number of days of annual leave and sick leave he had not used during t h a t year. Defendant school d i s t r i c t denied h i s claim, but tendered p l a i n t i f f $166.47 a s compensation f o r unused sick leave. During the period of h i s employment p l a i n t i f f attended classes a t Montana S t a t e University working towards h i s doctor of philosophy degree. The school board was aware of t h i s a t the t i m e they entered i n t o each of the employment contracts. P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s action t o recover the amount alleged due him by the school d i s t r i c t . The cause was t r i e d before the d i s t r i c t court, s i t t i n g without a jury. The court i n i t s o r i g i n a l findings of f a c t and conclusions of law held t h a t under the contract with the school d i s t r i c t p l a i n t i f f s annual leave did not accrue from year t o year and consequently p l a i n t i f f was e n t i t l e d t o only 20 days annual leave under h i s contract, but under section 59-1002, R.C.M. 1947, p l a i n t i f f i s a l - lowed, a s a s t a t e employee, t o accrue up t o 30 days annual leave. The court further found t h a t p l a i n t i f f had taken 3 days of annual leave during the school year and t h a t he was away from h i s job attending classes a t Montana S t a t e University f o r a period of time equivalent t o 19 working days. The court found p l a i n t i f f had used 22 days of annual leave during the school year 1972-73, and under h i s contract was e n t i t l e d t o no reimbursement f o r annual leave, but under section 59-1002, he was e n t i t l e d t o 8 days of compensation f o r annual leave (30 days accumulated leave - 22 days used). To find p l a i n t i f f ' s d a i l y earnings, t h e court divided p l a i n t i f f ' s 1972-73 annual salary of $15,400 by 365, the number of days i n a year, which r e s u l t s i n a d a i l y r a t e of $42.19. The court multiplied the d a i l y r a t e by the 8 days found t o be owing p l a i n t i f f , t o a r r i v e a t $337.52, the amount t h e court s t a t e d the school d i s t r i c t owed p l a i n t i f f f o r annual leave. The court f u r t h e r found p l a i n t i f f was e n t i t l e d t o 12 days sick leave f o r 1971-72 and 12 days f o r 1972-73. The court then found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s d a i l y earnings f o r 1971-72 was $40.00 per day. Therefore, the school d i s t r i c t owed a s unused sick leave $480 t o p l a i n t i f f f o r 1971-72, and $506.28 f o r 1972-73, f o r a t o t a l of $666.28. Under section 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, p l a i n t i f f is e n t i t l e d t o a lump sum payment of one-quarter of t h a t amount o r $166.47. Therefore, the court held the school d i s t r i c t owed plain- t i f f $337.52 as compensation f o r annual leave and $166.47 a s com- pensation f o r s i c k leave, o r a t o t a l compensation of $503.99. The court further ordered t h a t each party pay i t s own attorney fee. P l a i n t i f f challenged those findings of f a c t and conclusions of law. A hearing was held on the challenge. The court then amended i t s findings and conclusions, finding t h a t p l a i n t i f f was s t i l l e n t i t l e d t o $166.47 f o r sick leave, but was e n t i t l e d t o a f u l l 30 days annual leave i n addition t o those days used i n the 1972-73 school year. The court then took p l a i n t i f f ' s 1972-73 salary, found t o be $16,400 r a t h e r than $15,400 previously used, and divided it by 365 days, which came t o a d a i l y r a t e of $44.93, which, mul- t i p l i e d by 30, came t o $1,347.90 the amount due p l a i n t i f f f o r unused annual leave. The annual leave and sick leave t o t a l $1,514.37. From t h a t amended judgment, p l a i n t i f f and defendant school d i s t r i c t appeal. The three contracts between p l a i n t i f f and the school dis- t r i c t were i d e n t i c a l , except f o r a yearly increase i n salary, and read : "THIS A G R E E M E N T between Robert S. Bitney, a Superintendent duly qualified t o supervise, administer, and teach i n the Public Schools of Montana, Party of the F i r s t Part, and the Board of Trustees of Belgrade School D i s t r i c t No. 44, County of Gallatin, S t a t e of Montana, Party of the Second Part: "WITNESSETH THAT: Party of the F i r s t Part agrees mperform the regular duties of a school adminis- t r a t o r of such Second Class School during t h e en- suing year beginning July 1, 1972 and ending June 30, 1973: "AND T H A T t h e Party of the Second Part further agrees t o grant the Party of the F i r s t Part, one (1) f u l l month's leave from h i s school duties, with f u l l remuneration, i n addition t o the regular f u l l s i c k leave allowed other teachers i n the school system. 11 The question presented f o r review on appeal i s whether p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o accumulated annual leave, s i c k leave, a.nd attorney fees. Before p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t t o accumulated annual leave and s i c k leave can be ascertained, it f i r s t must be determined whether h i s r i g h t t o annual leave and sick leave i s -mk$contractual, o r whether he can bring himself within the purview of section 59-1002, and section 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, which govern annual leave and s i c k leave of an employee of the s t a t e , county or c i t y . There i s no doubt M r . Bitney, as superintendent of schools, was an employee of the school d i s t r i c t , and therefore a public employee. Section 59-1007, R.C.M. 1947, excludes school teachers from t h a t part of the a c t allowing annual leave and s i c k leave. The question then becomes -- whether o r not Bitney, a s school super- intendent, can be c l a s s i f i e d a s a school teacher. In S t a t e ex r e l . Howard v. Ireland, 114 Mont. 488, 138 P.2d 569, t h i s Court held t h a t there i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between a superintendent and a teacher i n matters of h i r i n g and dismissal. The d i s t i n c t i o n there, however, evolved from two d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t e s f o r h i r i n g and dismissal, one covering teachers and the other covering superintendents. Here, there a r e not two d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t e s regulating the compensation of teachers and superintendents. Both a r e hired on a contractual relationship between the individual and the school board. The contract i t s e l f s t a t e s Bitney i s qualified t o teach i n the school d i s t r i c t and s t a t e s he i s e n t i t l e d t o "regular f u l l s i c k leave allowed other teachers i n the school system." (Emphasis ours). Such language implies both p a r t i e s considered Bitney a school teacher. So f o r the purpose of interpreting t h i s contract only, we c l a s s i f y Bitney a s a school teacher, which would make sections 59-1002 and 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, not applicable t o him. This problem then arises--teachers, because of the 9 month school year, do not receive vacation time. Superintendents serve the e n t i r e year, therefore annual leave becomes a necessity t o t h e i r contracts. Here, Bitney contracted with t h e school board f o r one month's vacation time with f u l l remuneration. The contract i s s i l e n t a s t o accumulation and/or remuneration on termination. There i s only one superintendent t o a school d i s t r i c t and t h i s problem r a r e l y a r i s e s so there i s no school d i s t r i c t policy which would a s s i s t i n t h e interpretation of the contract language. The p a r t i e s agree t h a t we must look t o the contract t o determine ~ i t n e y ' s and t h e school d i s t r i c t ' s r i g h t s and obligations. But, what standard should apply when the contract i s s i l e n t o r vague i n t h i s area? Does Bitney have a r i g h t t o compensation f o r unused vacation time? Does he have a r i g h t t o compensation f o r unused sick leave? F i r s t , we consider the question of sick leave. p l a i n t i f f ' s contract e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s : "AND THAT t h e party of the Second Part further agrees t o grant the Party of the F i r s t Part, one (1) f u l l month's leave from h i s school duties, with f u l l remuneration, i n addition t o the regular f u l l s i c k leave allowed other teachers i n the school system." (Emphasis ours). Therefore, we find p l a i n t i f f contracted f o r t h e regular s i c k leave granted t o a l l teachers of the school d i s t r i c t . The " ~ o a r d ~ o l i c y / ~ e a c h e r Handbook", a book distributed t o a l l faculty members by t h e school d i s t r i c t was entered i n t o evidence. It s t a t e s t h i s policy of the school d i s t r i c t a s t o sick leave compensation: "(a) Eight days of s i c k leave, with f u l l pay, s h a l l be given each year of contract employment. "(b) A teacher on contract may accumulate a t o t a l of f o r t y days of s i c k leave during continuous tenure i n t h e Belgrade Schools. I t The book then goes on t o explain the procedare i f a teacher i s sick and h i s o r her sick leave accumulation. But no- where does i t provide f o r compensation f o r accumulated s i c k leave upon the termination of employment. Therefore we find there was no policy f o r compensation of unused s i c k leave by t h e school dis- t r i c t upon termination of employment. The d i s t r i c t court erred i n awarding p l a i n t i f f $166.47 f o r accumulated unused s i c k leave. As t o the annual leave, the contract provides p l a i n t i f f s h a l l receive one month's annual leave with f u l l remuneration. And again, there i s no school d i s t r i c t policy concerning vacation time, and nothing mentioned i n the handbook f o r teachers and superintendents. In or&er t o i n t e r p r e t the contract, we f e e l compelled t o turn t o the overall policy established by the legis- l a t u r e concerning annual leave and i t s accumulation. Section 59-1002, R.C.M. 1947, before amendment i n 1974, provided: 1 I Annual vacation leave may be accumulated t o a t o t a l not t o exceed t h i r t y (30) working days. I I Since government agencies must work within the confines of a f i s c a l budget, it i s only l o g i c a l t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e limited t h e accumulation of annual leave. That way departments of government can estimate more precisely the annual leave compensation f o r employees terminating t h e i r employment. School d i s t r i c t s must a l s o work within budgets. They too, must know what t o expect i n com- pensating terminating employees. Here, the contract i n question is s i l e n t on the matter so we w i l l apply the same standard established by the l e g i s l a t u r e "for a l l public employees", which would e n t i t l e p l a i n t i f f t o 30 days accumulated annual leave upon termination of h i s employment with the school d i s t r i c t . It follows t h a t we must determine how much compensation p l a i n t i f f i s t o be paid f o r the 30 day annual leave. There i s no authority c i t e d by e i t h e r party a s t o the computation which must be used. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t h i s annual salary should be divided by twelve t o determine h i s monthly compensation; t h a t amount should be divided by 20, f o r 20 working days i n a month, t o a r r i v e a t the d a i l y wage; then t h a t amount should be multiplied by the number of days of annual leave allowed. Since there has been no authority c i t e d by e i t h e r party t o demonstrate t h a t the d i s t r i c t court erred i n determining t h e amount of annual leave compensation by dividing p l a i n t i f f ' s annual s a l a r y by 365 t o determine a d a i l y wage, then multiplying t h e amount by t h e 30 days of annual leave accumulated, t h i s Court finds the d i s t r i c t court acted properly i n i t s determination. W e find nothing i n the record t o support the annual salary f i g u r e of $16,400 f o r t h e 1972-73 school year. The amount of annual salary shown on the face of the 1972-73 contract i s $15,400. That amount divided by 365 establishes a d a i l y r a t e of $42.92. When t h a t d a i l y r a t e i s multiplied by the 30 days of accrued leave it equals $1,287.60. This i s the accrued vacation pay the school d i s t r i c t owes p l a i n t i f f . There i s some controversy a s t o whether o r not p l a i n t i f f should be charged annual leave f o r the t i m e taken t o attend school. The p a r t i e s were aware of t h i s arrangement a t each contract time and selected t o ignore it. The school d i s t r i c t did not question the arrangement u n t i l t h i s l i t i g a t i o n arose and i t appears t h a t plain- t i f f ' s attendance a t school benefited both p l a i n t i f f and the school d i s t r i c t f o r the three year period i n question. It i s much too l a t e now t o examine i n t o the arrangement and reform t h e i r mutual executed agreement. The f i n a l issue f o r t h i s Court's determination is the question of attorney fees. P l a i n t i f f argues he i s e n t i t l e d t o attorney fees a s section 41-1306, R.C.M. 1947, expressly s t a t e s t h a t any judgment f o r wages s h a l l include attorney fees. The school d i s t r i c t counters t h a t section 41-1301(3) (b) , R.C.M. 1947, expressly excludes p l a i n t i f f from recovering attorney fees. It provides: "'Employer' includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business t r u s t , a l e g a l representative, o r any organized group of persons, a c t i n z d i r e c t l v o r i n d i r e c t l v i n the i n t e r e s t of an emploTer i n r e l a t i o n t o an ekployee, but s h a l l not - 7 include t h e United States, s t a t e o f - ~ o n t a n a , o r any l e g a l subdivision thereof." (Emphasis ours). The general r u l e i s t h a t attorney fees a r e not recoverable by successful l i t i g a n t s e i t h e r i n law o r equity, except where they a r e expressly provided f o r by contract o r s t a t u t e . Roseneau Food, Inc. v. Coleman, 140 Mont. 572, 374 P.2d 87. Although section 41-1306, R.C.M. 1947, provides f o r attorney fees i n judgments f o r wages, t h i s Court finds t h a t section does not apply t o s t a t e government o r any of i t s subdivisions which would include de- fendant school d i s t r i c t , f o r it is expressly excluded i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of employer a s above quoted i n section 41-1301(3)(b), R.C.M. 1947. Therefore, the d i s t r i c t court properly denied attorney fees t o p l a i n t i f f . That part of the judgment of the d i s t r i c t court granting sick leave terminative pay t o p l a i n t i f f i s reversed. W e affirm t h a t part of the judgment t h a t awarded 30 days annual leave pay and denied attorney fees t o p l a i n t i f f . W e remand the cause t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r an order correcting the computation of annual leave awarded, consistent with t h i s opinionf'" J u s t i c e / W e Concur: ................................. Justices. M r . Chief Justice James T. Harrison did not participate in this cause.