Opinion ID: 879506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Did the District Court err by denying appellants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of vacation pay? Appellants claim that since respondent paid Robert Anderson past due vacation pay during the discovery period for this case, the employer thereby acquiesced to the charges against the company. According to appellants, summary judgment on this issue should have been granted, along with attorney fees and costs because the amount was not paid in a timely fashion. Appellants cite §§ 39-3-201(5), 39-3-205(1)(2), 39-3-206, and 39-3-214, MCA, in support of their allegations. They claim that the issue of vacation pay is not preempted by federal labor law, as it is a right protected by these state laws. As previously discussed, Allis-Chalmers specifically lists vacation pay as one of those items preempted by the operation of federal labor law. Also, vacation pay was grievable under Anderson's collective bargaining agreement and covered by federal labor law interpretation. For this Court to find that state law applies to this issue would render the binding grievance and arbitration procedure ineffectual and frustrate the uniform federal interpretation outlined in Allis-Chalmers. Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., HARRISON, WEBER, GULBRANDSON and McDONOUGH, JJ., and FRANK I. HASWELL, Former C.J. (Retired), [] concur.