BITNEY v SCHOOL DIST NO 44

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12878 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1975 ROBERT S. BITNEY, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 44 e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : C. W. J o n e s a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents: Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Donald E. White a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: ' March 4, 1975 ,,;,.d , ,,~ - ,, "- M. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. r This i s an a p p e a l from an amended judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, awarding p l a i n t i f f $166.47 i n s i c k l e a v e , and $1,347.90 i n annual l e a v e a s compensation upon t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s employment a s s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s c h o o l s f o r School D i s t r i c t No. 44, G a l l a t i n County. P l a i n t i f f Robert S. Bitney was h i r e d by defendant school d i s t r i c t a s school s u p e r i n t e n d e n t f o r t h e school y e a r s 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73, under t h r e e s e p a r a t e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t s of employment. Defendant s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a t a board meeting h e l d on January 9 , 1974, r e s o l v e d t o t e r m i n a t e p l a i n t i f f ' s employment w i t h t h e school d i s t r i c t a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n of h i s c o n t r a c t f o r t h a t school y e a r . Upon completion of t h e school y e a r , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a claim w i t h t h e school board f o r $4,537.93 f o r 75 days of unused annual l e a v e ; $513.34 f o r 34 days of unused s i c k l e a v e ; and $144.28 f o r fringe benefits. P l a i n t i f f a r r i v e d a t t h e s e f i g u r e s by d i v i d i n g h i s y e a r l y s a l a r y by 12 f o r a monthly s a l a r y f i g u r e ; d i v i d e d t h a t f i g u r e by 20, t h e average number of working days p e r 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 y e a r he was employed by t h e school d i s t r i c t ; then m u l t i p l i e d t h e r e s u l t i n g f i g u r e by t h e number of days of annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e he had n o t used d u r i n g t h a t y e a r . Defendant school d i s t r i c t denied h i s c l a i m , b u t tendered p l a i n t i f f $166.47 a s compensation f o r unused s i c k l e a v e . During t h e p e r i o d of h i s employment p l a i n t i f f a t t e n d e d c l a s s e s a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y working towards h i s d o c t o r of philosophy degree. The school board was aware of t h i s a t t h e t i m e t h e y e n t e r e d i n t o each of t h e employment c o n t r a c t s . P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r t h e amount a l l e g e d due him by t h e school d i s t r i c t . The cause was t r i e d before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury. The c o u r t i n i t s o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law h e l d t h a t under t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e school d i s t r i c t p l a i n t i f f s annual l e a v e d i d n o t a c c r u e from y e a r t o y e a r 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 l e a v e under h i s c o n t r a c t , b u t under s e c t i o n 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 a c c r u e up t o 30 days annual l e a v e . The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t p l a i n t i f f had taken 3 days of annual l e a v e d u r i n g t h e school y e a r and t h a t he was away from h i s job a t t e n d i n g c l a s s e s a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y f o r a p e r i o d o f time e q u i v a l e n t t o 19 working days. The c o u r t found p l a i n t i f f had used 22 days of annual l e a v e d u r i n g t h e school y e a r 1972-73, and under h i s c o n t r a c t was e n t i t l e d t o no reimbursement f o r annual l e a v e , b u t under s e c t i o n 59-1002, he was e n t i t l e d t o 8 days o f compensation f o r annual l e a v e (30 days accumulated l e a v e - 22 days u s e d ) . To f i n d p l a i n t i f f ' s d a i l y e a r n i n g s , t h e c o u r t d i v i d e d p l a i n t i f f ' s 1972-73 annual s a l a r y of $15,400 by 365, t h e number o f days i n a y e a r , which r e s u l t s i n a d a i l y r a t e of $42.19. The c o u r t m u l t i p l i e d t h e d a i l y r a t e by t h e 8 days found t o b e owing p l a i n t i f f , t o a r r i v e a t $337.52, t h e amount t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h e school d i s t r i c t owed p l a i n t i f f f o r annual l e a v e . The c o u r t 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 s i c k l e a v e f o r 1971-72 and 12 days f o r 1972-73. The c o u r t then found t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s d a i l y e a r n i n g s f o r 1971-72 was $40.00 per day. T h e r e f o r e , t h e school d i s t r i c t owed a s unused s i c k l e a v e $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 s e c t i o n 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, p l a i n t i f f i s 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, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h e school d i s t r i c t owed p l a i n t i f f $337.52 a s compensation f o r annual l e a v e and $166.47 a s comp e n s a t i o n f o r s i c k l e a v e , o r a t o t a l compensation of $503.99. The c o u r t f u r t h e r ordered t h a t each p a r t y pay i t s own a t t o r n e y f e e . P l a i n t i f f challenged t h o s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e c h a l l e n g e . The c o u r t then amended i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , f i n d i n g 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 s i c k l e a v e , b u t was e n t i t l e d t o a f u l l 30 days annual l e a v e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e days used i n t h e 1972-73 school y e a r . The c o u r t then took p l a i n t i f f ' s 1972-73 s a l a r y , found t o b e $16,400 r a t h e r than $15,400 p r e v i o u s l y used, and d i v i d e d i t 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 t h e amount due p l a i n t i f f f o r unused annual l e a v e . The annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e 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 t h r e e c o n t r a c t s between p l a i n t i f f and t h e school d i s t r i c t were i d e n t i c a l , except f o r a y e a r l y i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y , and read : "THIS AGREEMENT between Robert S. Bitney, a Superintendent duly q u a l i f i e d t o s u p e r v i s e , a d m i n i s t e r , and t e a c h i n t h e Public Schools of Montana, P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t , and t h e Board of T r u s t e e s of Belgrade School D i s t r i c t No. 44, County of G a l l a t i n , S t a t e of Montana, P a r t y of t h e Second P a r t : "WITNESSETH THAT: P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t a g r e e s mperform t h e r e g u l a r d u t i e s of a school administ r a t o r of such Second Class School d u r i n g t h e ens u i n g y e a r beginning J u l y 1, 1972 and ending June 30, 1973: "AND T A t h e P a r t y of t h e Second P a r t f u r t h e r HT a g r e e s t o g r a n t t h e P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t , one (1) f u l l month's l e a v e from h i s school d u t i e s , w i t h f u l l remuneration, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r f u l l s i c k l e a v e allowed o t h e r t e a c h e r s i n t h e school system. 11 The q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d 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 l e a v e , s i c k l e a v e , a.nd a t t o r n e y f e e s . Before p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t t o accumulated annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e can b e a s c e r t a i n e d , i t f i r s t must b e determined whether h i s r i g h t t o annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e i s - m k $ c o n t r a c t u a l , o r whether he can b r i n g himself w i t h i n t h e purview of s e c t i o n 59-1002, and s e c t i o n 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, which govern annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e of an employee of t h e s t a t e , county o r c i t y . There i s no doubt M r . B i t n e y , as s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s c h o o l s , was an employee o f t h e school d i s t r i c t , and t h e r e f o r e a p u b l i c employee. S e c t i o n 59-1007, R.C.M. 1947, excludes s c h o o l t e a c h e r s from t h a t p a r t of t h e a c t allowing annual l e a v e and s i c k l e a v e . The q u e s t i o n then becomes -- whether o r n o t Bitney, a s school super- i n t e n d e n t , can be c l a s s i f i e d a s a school t e a c h e r . I n S t a t e ex r e l . Howard v. I r e l a n d , 114 Mont. 488, 138 P.2d 569, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between a s u p e r i n t e n d e n t and a t e a c h e r i n m a t t e r s o f h i r i n g and d i s m i s s a l . The d i s t i n c t i o n t h e r e , 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 d i s m i s s a l , one c o v e r i n g t e a c h e r s and t h e o t h e r covering superintendents. Here, t h e r e a r e n o t two d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t e s r e g u l a t i n g t h e compensation of t e a c h e r s and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s . Both a r e h i r e d on a c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e school board. The c o n t r a c t i t s e l f s t a t e s Bitney i s q u a l i f i e d t o t e a c h i n t h e 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 " r e g u l a r f u l l s i c k l e a v e allowed o t h e r t e a c h e r s i n t h e school system." ours). (Emphasis Such language i m p l i e s both p a r t i e s considered Bitney a school t e a c h e r . So f o r t h e purpose of i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s c o n t r a c t only, we c l a s s i f y Bitney a s a school t e a c h e r , which would make s e c t i o n s 59-1002 and 59-1008, R.C.M. 1947, n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o him. T h i s problem then a r i s e s - - t e a c h e r s , because of t h e 9 month school y e a r , do n o t r e c e i v e v a c a t i o n time. Superintendents s e r v e t h e e n t i r e y e a r , t h e r e f o r e annual l e a v e becomes a n e c e s s i t y t o t h e i r contracts. Here, Bitney c o n t r a c t e d w i t h t h e school board f o r one month's v a c a t i o n time w i t h f u l l remuneration. The c o n t r a c t i s s i l e n t a s t o accumulation and/or remuneration on t e r m i n a t i o n . There i s only one s u p e r i n t e n d e n t 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 t h e r e i s no school d i s t r i c t p o l i c y which would a s s i s t i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t language. The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t we must look t o t h e c o n t r a c t t o determine ~ i t n e y ' sand t h e school d i s t r i c t ' s r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s . But, what s t a n d a r d should apply when t h e c o n t r a c t i s s i l e n t o r vague i n t h i s area? v a c a t i o n time? Does B i t n e y have a r i g h t t o compensation f o r unused Does he have a r i g h t t o compensation f o r unused sick leave? F i r s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n of s i c k l e a v e . plaintiff's contract explicitly s t a t e s : "AND THAT t h e p a r t y of t h e Second P a r t f u r t h e r a g r e e s t o g r a n t t h e P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t , one (1) f u l l month's l e a v e from h i s school d u t i e s , w i t h f u l l remuneration, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a r f u l l s i c k l e a v e allowed o t h e r t e a c h e r s i n t h e school system." (Emphasis ours). T h e r e f o r e , we f i n d p l a i n t i f f c o n t r a c t e d f o r t h e r e g u l a r s i c k l e a v e g r a n t e d t o a l l t e a c h e r s of t h e 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 d i s t r i b u t e d t o a l l f a c u l t y members by t h e school d i s t r i c t was e n t e r e d i n t o evidence. I t s t a t e s t h i s p o l i c y of t h e school d i s t r i c t a s t o s i c k l e a v e compensation: " ( a ) Eight days of s i c k l e a v e , w i t h f u l l pay, s h a l l b e given each y e a r of c o n t r a c t employment. "(b) A t e a c h e r on c o n t r a c t may accumulate a t o t a l of f o r t y days of s i c k l e a v e d u r i n g continuous t e n u r e i n t h e Belgrade Schools. I t The book then goes on t o e x p l a i n t h e procedare i f a t e a c h e r i s s i c k and h i s o r h e r s i c k l e a v e accumulation. But no- where does i t provide f o r compensation f o r accumulated s i c k l e a v e upon t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of employment. T h e r e f o r e we f i n d t h e r e was no p o l i c y f o r compensation o f unused s i c k l e a v e by t h e school d i s t r i c t upon t e r m i n a t i o n of employment. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding p l a i n t i f f $166.47 f o r accumulated unused s i c k l e a v e . As t o t h e annual l e a v e , t h e c o n t r a c t provides p l a i n t i f f s h a l l r e c e i v e one month's annual l e a v e w i t h f u l l remuneration. And a g a i n , t h e r e i s no school d i s t r i c t p o l i c y concerning v a c a t i o n time, and n o t h i n g mentioned i n t h e handbook f o r t e a c h e r s and superintendents. I n or&er t o i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r a c t , we f e e l compelled t o t u r n t o t h e o v e r a l l p o l i c y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e concerning annual l e a v e and i t s accumulation. 59-1002, R.C.M. Section 1947, b e f o r e amendment i n 1974, provided: 1I Annual v a c a t i o n l e a v e may be accumulated t o a t o t a l n o t t o exceed t h i r t y (30) working days. I I Since government a g e n c i e s must work w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s of a f i s c a l budget, i t i s only l o g i c a l t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e l i m i t e d t h e accumulation of annual l e a v e . That way departments of government can e s t i m a t e more p r e c i s e l y t h e annual l e a v e compensation f o r employees t e r m i n a t i n g t h e i r employment. work w i t h i n budgets. School d i s t r i c t s must a l s o They t o o , must know what t o expect i n com- p e n s a t i n g t e r m i n a t i n g employees. Here, t h e c o n t r a c t i n q u e s t i o n i s s i l e n t on t h e m a t t e r so we w i l l apply t h e same s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e "for a l l p u b l i c 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 l e a v e upon t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s employment w i t h t h e 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 b e paid f o r t h e 30 day annual leave. There i s no a u t h o r i t y c i t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y a s t o t h e computation which must b e used. P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t h i s annual s a l a r y should be d i v i d e d by twelve t o determine h i s monthly compensation; t h a t amount should b e d i v i d e d by 20, f o r 20 working days i n a month, t o a r r i v e a t t h e d a i l y wage; then t h a t amount should be m u l t i p l i e d by t h e number of days o f annual l e a v e allowed. Since t h e r e has been no a u t h o r i t y c i t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y t o demonstrate t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n determining t h e amount of annual l e a v e compensation by d i v i d i n g 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 m u l t i p l y i n g t h e amount by t h e 30 days of annual l e a v e accumulated, t h i s Court f i n d s t h e d i s t r i c t court acted properly i n i t s determination. W f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o support t h e annual s a l a r y e f i g u r e of $16,400 f o r t h e 1972-73 school y e a r . The amount of annual s a l a r y shown on t h e f a c e of t h e 1972-73 c o n t r a c t i s $15,400. That amount d i v i d e d by 365 e s t a b l i s h e s 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 m u l t i p l i e d by t h e 30 days of accrued l e a v e i t e q u a l s $1,287.60. This i s t h e accrued v a c a t i o n pay t h e school d i s t r i c t owes p l a i n t i f f . There i s some c o n t r o v e r s y a s t o whether o r n o t p l a i n t i f f should b e charged annual l e a v e f o r t h e t i m e taken t o a t t e n d school. The p a r t i e s were aware of t h i s arrangement a t each c o n t r a c t time and s e l e c t e d t o i g n o r e i t . The school d i s t r i c t d i d n o t q u e s t i o n t h e arrangement u n t i l t h i s l i t i g a t i o n a r o s e and i t appears t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t e n d a n c e a t school b e n e f i t e d both p l a i n t i f f and t h e school d i s t r i c t f o r t h e t h r e e y e a r period i n q u e s t i o n . It i s much t o o l a t e now t o examine i n t o t h e arrangement and reform t h e i r mutual executed agreement. The f i n a l i s s u e f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t h e q u e s t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s . P l a i n t i f f argues he i s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s a s s e c t i o n 41-1306, R.C.M. 1947, e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s t h a t any judgment f o r wages s h a l l i n c l u d e a t t o r n e y f e e s . t h a t s e c t i o n 41-1301(3) (b) , R.C.M. from r e c o v e r i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s . The school d i s t r i c t c o u n t e r s 1947, e x p r e s s l y excludes p l a i n t i f f It provides: "'Employer' i n c l u d e s an i n d i v i d u a l , p a r t n e r s h i p , association, corporation, business t r u s t , a l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , o r any organized group of p e r s o n s , 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 t h e 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, b u t s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e t h e United S t a t e s , s t a t e o f - ~ o n t a n a , r any o l e g a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h e r e o f . " (Emphasis o u r s ) . 7 The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s a r e n o t r e c o v e r a b l e by s u c c e s s f u l l i t i g a n t s e i t h e r i n law o r e q u i t y , except where t h e y a r e e x p r e s s l y provided f o r by c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u t e . Food, I n c . v. Coleman, 140 Mont. 572, 374 P.2d 87. Roseneau Although s e c t i o n 41-1306, R.C.M. 1947, provides f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s i n judgments f o r wages, t h i s Court f i n d s t h a t s e c t i o n does n o t apply t o s t a t e government o r any of i t s s u b d i v i s i o n s which would i n c l u d e defendant school d i s t r i c t , f o r i t i s e x p r e s s l y excluded i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of employer a s above quoted i n s e c t i o n 41-1301(3)(b), R.C.M. 1947. T h e r e f o r e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y denied attorney fees t o plaintiff. That p a r t of t h e judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t i n g s i c k l e a v e t e r m i n a t i v e pay t o p l a i n t i f f i s r e v e r s e d . W e affirm t h a t p a r t of t h e judgment t h a t awarded 30 days annual l e a v e pay and denied a t t o r n e y f e e s t o p l a i n t i f f . W remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r an o r d e r c o r r e c t i n g t h e computation of annual l e a v e awarded, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinionf'" Justice W Concur: e ................................. Justices. M r . Chief Justice James T. Harrison did not participate in this cause. /

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.