Celmer v. Schmitt, 645 P.2d 946 (Mont. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Celmer v. Schmitt, 645 P.2d 946 (Mont. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 · …where he failed to report it or to inform his employer that he expected compensation for it ✓
13 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lewis v. B & B PAWNBROKERS, INC. (mont, 1998-12-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. B & B PAWNBROKERS, INC.
Mont. · 1998 · confidence medium
Celmer v. Schmitt, [ 198 Mont. 271, 273 ,] 645 P.2d 946, 948 (Mont.1982)[.] ¶ 21.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. B & B Pawnbrokers, Inc.
Mont. · 1998 · confidence medium
Celmer v. Schmitt, [ 198 Mont. 271, 273 ,] 645 P.2d 946, 948 (Mont. 1982)[.] ¶21 Lewis argues that the District Court erred in applying a contract defense — estoppel or waiver — to defeat a statutory entitlement, where the Montana Legislature has not expressly approved of such a defense.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dagan v. Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Soler v. G. & U., Inc., 833 F.2d 1104, 1109-10 (2d Cir. 1987) (housing furnished for primary benefit of workers constitutes “wages” under FLSA); Celmer v. Schmitt, 645 P.2d 946, 947 (employee compensated in part through rent-free housing).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." B.R. Woodward Marketing, Inc. v. Collins Food Service, Inc. (2×)
Utah Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Celmer v. Schmitt, 198 Mont. 271 , 645 P.2d 946, 948 (1982) (An employee would be estopped from claiming compensation for overtime work where he failed to report it or to inform his employer that he expected compensation for it until he instituted suit after his discharge.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STANLEY L. CELMER, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LLOYD SCHMITT D/B/A STANFORD MEATS, Defendant and Respondent
81-477.
Montana Supreme Court.
May 20, 1982.
645 P.2d 946
1982 Mont. LEXIS 928
Craig R. Buehler, Mt. Legal Services, Lewistown, for plaintiff and appellant., Lloyd Schmitt, pro se.
Daly, Haswell, Harrison, Shea, Sheehy.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
MR. JUSTICE DALY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal arises from a ruling by the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Judith Basin, disallowing Stanley Celmer’s wage claim against Lloyd Schmitt. Celmer’s motion for a new trial and motion to amend the judgment were denied, and this appeal followed.

Celmer was hired by Schmitt at a salary of $1,000 per month to learn meat cutting and to manage the meat cutting operation of Schmitt’s agricultural business. Schmitt also provided Celmer with a house, rent free, and a $50 per month meat allowance, which was later increased to $55 per month. The rental value of the house was determined to be $225 per month. .

The Schmitt business is an integrated livestock, grain and meat production enterprise, and has been classified as an agricultural enterprise by both the United States Department of Labor and the State of Montana Department of Labor and Industry. As an agricultural laborer, Celmer was hired to work up to ten hours a day for usually five and one-half days a week. He was advised prior to employment that he would be an agricultural worker, to which he agreed.

Celmer worked for Schmitt from April 9, 1980, until the morning of December 10,1980. When he quit, he did not provide any notice to Schmitt. According to Celmer’s records, he worked 135 hours of overtime during his employment with Schmitt and was not compensated for them.

Celmer presents several issues for review; however, there is but one substantial issue: Did Schmitt fail to fully compensate Celmer during the course of his employment?

The District Court concluded that the contract of employment excluded overtime payments because Celmer was compensated by salary and allowance for rent and meat. Therefore, the court ruled there was a failure on Celmer’s part to prove that any wages were due.

We have reviewed the record and find that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the findings and conclusions[*273] of the District Court. Jensen v. Jensen (1981), Mont., 629 P.2d 765, 38 St. Rep. 927.

Celmer’s contention that he was not an agricultural worker as defined by Plouffe v. Farm and Ranch Equipment Co. (1977), 174 Mont. 313, 570 P.2d 1106, and is thereby deserving of overtime wages pursuant to section 39-3-405, MCA, is without merit. The record reveals he was hired with the understanding he would be an agricultural employee and would have to perform any function required of him from Schmitt’s livestock, grain and meat production enterprise.

Further, Plouffe dealt with an individual who was working as a mechanic servicing farm equipment. There is a distinction in the law between these two. It has been generally held that service type of work is excluded from the agricultural exception while meat cutting and related livestock work is not. 56 C.J.S. Master and Servant, section 151. In any event, an employee would be estopped from claiming compensation for overtime work where he failed to report it or to inform his employer that he expected compensation for it until he instituted suit after his discharge. Herman v. Golden Arrow Dairy (1937), 191 Wash. 582, 71 P.2d 581.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL and JUSTICES HARRISON, SHEA, and SHEEHY concur.