Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 45 v. Cascade County School District No. 1 , 162 Mont. 277 ( 1973 )


Menu:
  •                                       No. 12357
    I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA
    F
    1973
    TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
    and HELPERS, LOCAL 7'145,
    P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
    CASCADE C U T SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
    O NY                                            1,
    Defendant and Respondent,
    MONTANA PUBLIC EMPT,OYEES ' ASSOCIATION,
    .
    I N C , a Montana corpora t i o n ,
    I n t e r v e n e r and A p p e l l a n t .
    Appeal from:         D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
    Honorable Pau 1 G. H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
    Counsel of Record:
    For I n t e r v e n e r and A p p e l l a n t :
    Cannon and G a r r i t y , Helena, Montana
    Ross Cannon argued, Helena, Montana
    For Defendant and Respondent:
    J . Fred Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s , Montana
    Michael T. Greely, argued, Deputy County A t t o r n e y ,
    Great F a l l s , Montana
    For P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t :
    Amicus C u r i a e
    H i l l e y and M c K i t t r i c k , Great F a l l s , Montana
    D. P a t r i c k McKittrick argued, Great F a l l s , Montana
    Submitted:          May 30, 1973
    F i l e d : \y$! 1 ;18
    9                                  Decided :
    '2
    i 13 j97'
    Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    This appeal is from a declaratory judgment in the district
    court of Cascade County, declaring that the members of plaintiff's
    union and intervener's association are not entitled as a matter
    of right to the vacation benefits enumerated in section 59-1001,
    R.C.M. 1947.
    This action was submitted to the district court on an
    agreed statement of facts.      Plaintiff's members and intervener's
    members are employed by defendant Cascade County School District
    No. 1 on a full time basis in nonteaching capacities.      These
    employees receive vacation benefits under administrative regula-
    tions of the school district as part of contract negotiations,
    rather than pursuant to the provisions of section 59-1001, R.C.M.
    The main issue for review is whether full time employees
    in nonteaching capacities of defendant School District are entitled
    as a matter of right to the vacation benefits enumerated in sec-
    tion 59-1001, R.C.M.    1947.   The secondary issue is whether they
    are entitled to these benefits retroactive to the date of their
    employment.
    In 1949, the Montana legislature passed an Act providing
    annual vacation leave for state, county and city employees.
    Chapter 131, Laws of 1949, now codified as section 59-1001, et
    seq., R.C.M. 1947.     The pertinent sections are:
    "Section 59-1001(1). Each employee of the state,
    or any county or city thereof, who is in contin-
    uous employment and service of the state, county
    or city thereof, is entitled to and shall earn
    annual vacation leave credit from the first full
    calendar month of employment. However, employees
    are not entitled to any leave with full pay until
    they have worked continuously for a period of
    twelve (12) calendar months. Vacation credits
    shall be earned in accordance with the following
    schedule: * * *.
    "Section 59-1007. The term 'employee,' as used
    herein, does not refer to or include elected
    state, county, or city officials, or school-
    teachers."
    The district court concluded and defendant now contends
    that the "schoolteachers" referred to in the Act are those
    teachers who work for the State Department of Institutions or
    other schoolteachers employed by the state of Montana, rather
    than schoolteachers employed by the various school districts.
    Therefore, the school district concludes that the exclusion of
    schoolteachers in section 59-1007, R.C.M. 1947 does not imply
    inclusion of all other school district employees.        The district
    court further concluded that plaintiff's members and intervener's
    members cannot be included by implication.        We do not agree.
    It is a basic principle of statutory construction that
    the intention of the legislature is controlling.        Section 93-
    401-16, R.C.M. 1947; Dunphy v. Anaconda Co. 
    151 Mont. 76
    , 
    438 P.2d 660
    .      In construing legislative intent     statutes must be
    read and considered in their entirety and legislative intent
    may not be gained from the wording of any particular section or
    sentence, but only from a consideration of the whole.        Home
    Bldg.   &   Loan v. Bd. of Equalization, 
    141 Mont. 113
    , 
    375 P.2d 312
    .
    On the other hand, where the words of the statute are
    plain, unambiguous, direct and certain, the court is not at
    liberty to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has
    been inserted.      Section 93-401-15, R.C.M. 1947.
    In the instant case, we hold that school district em-
    ployees other than teachers are entitled to vacation benefits
    under section 59-1001, R.C.M. 1947.      In doing so, this Court has
    given effect to a long line of this Court's decisions holding
    that a school district is a political subdivision and instru-
    mentality of the State.      Longpre v. School Dist. No. 2, 
    151 Mont. 345
    , 
    443 P.2d 1
    ; Fitzpatrick v. State Bd. of Exmrs.,
    
    105 Mont. 234
    , 
    70 P.2d 285
    ; State v. Cooney, 
    102 Mont. 521
    , 
    59 P.2d 48
    ; State v. Holmes, 
    100 Mont. 256
    , 
    47 P.2d 624
    .
    The legislature used the term "employeesf'in its generic
    sense to include all employees of the state or employees of
    state agencies of which a school district is included.        This in-
    terpretation is given further support by the language of section
    59-1007, R.C.M. 1947,wherein schoolteachers are specifically
    excluded.   The nonteaching school district employees are includ-
    ed by the definition of employees as used in section 59-1001,
    R.C.M. 1947.
    We cannot accept the limited interpretation sought by
    the defendant School District.        The court's function is to
    construe the language of the statute in accordance with its
    usual and ordinary acceptance.        County of Hill v. County of
    Liberty, 
    62 Mont. 15
    , 
    203 P. 500
    .         Schoolteachers in its common
    usage refers to those teaching at district schools as well as
    in the State's system of higher education.        Thus we conclude
    that nonteaching school district employees are employees of an
    agency of the state government and entitled to the vacation
    schedule set forth therein.
    The second issue presented for review is whether the
    plaintiff's members and the intervener's members are entitled
    to the benefits of section 59-1001, R.C.M. 1947,retroactive to
    the date of their employment.
    While the question of whether school district employees
    other than certified teachers are governed by this Act is here
    before this Court for the first time, the Attorney General has
    rendered several opinions supporting this position.        This Court
    is not bound by these opinions but they will be given consider-
    ation, especially when determining if this decision should be
    applied retroactively.
    -   4   -
    As early as 1950rt,he
    Attorney General for the State of
    Montana issued opinions declaring that noncertified employees
    of school districts are entitled to the benefits of section 59-
    1001, R.C.M. 1947.    In 23 Opinions of the Attorney General 345,
    346, it was stated:
    "Since a school district is a political subdivision
    of the State it is only reasonable to assume that
    the Legislature intended that the employees of a
    school district were included in the category of
    State employees as provided in the Act. That
    assumption is strengthened by the language of
    Section 7 of Chapter 131 wherein the Act specific-
    ally excludes school teachers from the operation
    of the Act. Since the law makers deemed it neces-
    sary to specially withhold the benefits of the Act
    from school teachers, it follows therefrom that it
    was their intention that the remaining employees
    of the school districts should be entitled to
    vacation leave."
    This conclusion has been reemphasized several times since then.
    See 
    25 Op. Att'y Gen. 123
     (1954); 
    27 Op. Att'y Gen. 184
     (1958),
    
    28 Op. Att'y Gen. 133
     (1960), 
    31 Op. Att'y Gen. 31
     (1966).
    Due to the fact that several opinions of the Attorney
    General have been issued on this or related matters and that
    this Court has long held that a school district is a political
    subdivision of the State, we see no reason why the school dis-
    trict was unaware of the application of the statute to their
    nonteaching employees.
    Additionally eleven sessions of the State legislature
    have not seen fit to change this interpretation of the Attorney
    General and the previous decisions of this Court.        Our decision
    does not take away or impair a vested right or create any new
    obligation upon the school district.     Butte   &   Superior Min. Co.
    v. McIntyre, 
    71 Mont. 254
    , 
    229 P. 730
    .     It merely enforces the
    rights which were created by the 1949 legislature.
    Plaintiff's members and intervener's members are entieled
    to the vacation benefits of section 59-1001, R.C.M.        1947,retroactive
    to the date of their employment subject to the two year statute
    of l i m i t a t i o n p l a c e d upon a l i a b i l i t y c r e a t e d by s t a t u t e ( S e c t i o n
    93-2607,       R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) and r e d u c e d by t h e v a c a t i o n b e n e f i t s re-
    c e i v e d under c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s .
    F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s t h e judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
    i s r e v e r s e d a n d t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r e n t r y
    o f judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n .
    -------------- &
    ? A A                        U      -    -
    Associate J u s t i c e
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12357

Citation Numbers: 162 Mont. 277, 511 P.2d 339

Judges: Castles, Daly, Haeeison, Haswell, James, John

Filed Date: 6/18/1973

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023