Kuhr v. City of Billings
| Citation | 338 Mont. 402,168 P.3d 615,2007 MT 201 |
| Decision Date | 15 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 06-0373.,DA 06-0373. |
| Parties | Kris L. KUHR, Carl L. Zabrocki, Ed Newlin, Donald Regnier, Gilbert Sommerville, Walt Kuhr, Ron Martin, Uriah Thatcher, Vince Christensen, Gary Puckett, Rick Elsenpeter, Milo Lamphier, Michael Erben, Wayne Hirshi, Larry Rennich, George Walkki, Ronald D. Snelling, Leslie Sohlhiem, Mark Paddock, Jeffrey M. Brandt, Robert B. Dunn, Jeff Bloom, Greg Bochy, Matthew J. Hoppel, Joe E. Keener, Francis A. Ewalt, Gene A. Speidel, Clayton L. Post, Kelly Fugere, Steve Wilson, James Manning Mertz, Herman Rookhaizen, Bret A. Thormahlen, Stephen P. Hoklin, James V. Day, Sandy Rogers, Michael W. Martin, Edward J. Riesinger, Lee Brady, Kevin Bentz, Wade Madison, Terry O'Toole, Larry Pinnow, Lawrence J. Hart, Brian D. Corneliusen, Terry Larson, Alan Harper, Allan D. Markuson, Jason Frank, Vernon Mashek, Marcus Evenson, Tood B. Kinkhead, Patrick J. Nissen, Mitchell W. Erdmann, Timothy A. McLeod, Robert D. Meyer, Theordis Warren, James Lynch, Gregory S. Dillon, Derreck Mitchell, John R. Dillon, Wayne M. Fisher, and William T. Harvey, Plaintiffs, Respondents, and Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF BILLINGS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
For Appellant: Charles B. Brooks, City Attorney, Billings, Montana Richard Larson, Harlen, Chronister, Parish & Larson, P.C., Helena, Montana.
For Respondents: Lawrence A. Anderson, Great Falls, Montana Gene R. Jarussi, Jarussi & Bishop, Billings, Montana.
¶ 1 This appeal arises from a wage claim filed by the plaintiffs, all firefighters (Firefighters) formerly or currently employed by the City of Billings (City). The City appeals from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court's order granting the Firefighters' motion for partial summary judgment and from the court's judgment awarding damages to the Firefighters for unpaid wages and leave time, and awarding a penalty, attorney fees, and costs. The Firefighters cross-appeal the amount of damages for unpaid wages and leave time, and the amount of the penalty attorney fees, and costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
¶ 2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Did the District Court err in granting the Firefighters' motion for partial summary judgment concluding the City was liable for unpaid wages and leave time?
2. Did the District Court err in assessing the penalty for the City's failure to pay wages?
3. Did the District Court err in awarding costs to the Firefighters?
4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the Firefighters?
¶ 3 The City and the Local 521 International Association of Fire Fighters, on behalf of the Firefighters, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with regard to employer-employee relations, wages, hours and other conditions of employment, and to provide a means of resolving grievances. The agreement was renewed every two or three years.
¶ 4 The agreement in effect prior to July 1, 1995 (the pre-1995 agreement) provided the following pay formula:
a. Hourly rate is based on 2,080 hours per year. To determine this figure, annual base salary will be divided by 2,080 hours.
b. Formula for Regular Monthly Salary: Twenty-six (26) times the last full regular pay, (base pay plus longevity plus holiday pay) divided by twelve (12) equals regular monthly salary. (26 x 1 frp./12 = rms)
c. Regular paydays will be every other Friday.
The salary schedule attached to the pre-1995 agreement set forth a base salary dependent on a firefighter's position. For example, the base salary listed for a Firefighter 1 position for 1994-1995 was $2,069.79, which was then used to calculate a firefighter's regular monthly salary.
¶ 5 The agreement that went into effect on July 1, 1995 (the post-1995 agreement) provided the following pay formula:
a. Annual base salary is equal to 2080 hours × hourly base rate of pay listed on the attached Salary Schedule. Hourly base rate is base pay plus special certification pay.
b. Regular payday will be every other Friday.
The salary schedule attached to the post-1995 agreement set forth a base hourly salary. In this case, a Firefighter 1, in 1995-1996, received the base pay of $12.5624 per hour, plus special certification pay of $0.1731 per hour if eligible.
¶ 6 The Firefighters' work schedule set forth in both pre-1995 and post-1995 agreements was as follows:
The work schedule shall be a 27-day total work cycle consisting of seven (7) consecutive work shifts of twenty-four (24) hours on duty and forty-eight (48) hours off duty, immediately followed by six (6) consecutive days off.
Based on this work schedule, the Firefighters worked approximately 2,272 hours per year. When the Firefighters were paid every other Friday, the pay stub reflected that they were paid for forty hours per week, regardless of whether they worked more or less than forty hours per week. Although schedules were kept, which would indicate the number of hours worked by the Firefighters, the actual number of hours worked was not sent to the payroll department. This resulted in the Firefighters being paid for only 2,080 hours each year, rather than the 2,272 hours the Firefighters worked each year while on the 27-day work schedule.
¶ 7 Seventeen Firefighters filed a complaint alleging that the City failed to properly account for or pay the Firefighters for all hours worked and for earned leave time. They claimed that pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(2) of the Montana Constitution, the City was liable for its failure to pay for or account for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. Further, they alleged the City's failure to pay wages entitled the Firefighters to a penalty. The Firefighters requested that a class be certified and a common fund be established.
¶ 8 The Firefighters filed a motion for partial summary judgment. They argued that they had a constitutional right to be paid for every hour they worked in excess of an eight-hour day, and that this right could not be waived or bargained away. They did not argue that they were entitled to overtime for those hours worked, but that the hours were unpaid "straight time." The Firefighters did not base their claim on any violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Further, the Firefighters claimed, in addition to straight time, the City failed to properly account for and pay sick and vacation leave time. The City responded that the eight-hour work day provision in the Montana Constitution had no application in this case in light of §§ 39-4-107 and 39-3-406, MCA, which provide that the eight-hour day does not apply to firefighters working under an established collective bargaining agreement. The City noted that the Firefighters did not allege a violation of any terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The City then filed its own motion requesting summary judgment on all of the Firefighters' issues.
¶ 9 The District Court rejected the Firefighters' claims that they were entitled to unpaid wages pursuant to Article XII, Section 2, of the Montana Constitution. Instead, the court compared the pre- and post-1995 collective bargaining agreements and determined the matter based on a breach of contract theory. The court found that the pre-1995 agreement was an annual wage contract and the post-1995 agreement was an hourly wage contract. Thus, the pre-1995 agreement provided the exact wage to be paid for the year regardless of the number of hours worked. The post-1995 agreement, on the other hand, required that the Firefighters be paid for each hour worked. Accordingly, the Firefighters were entitled to unpaid straight time from 1995 forward. The court determined that the issue of leave time could be worked out under the agreements as well — that the Firefighters' "leave time should be credited and debited at the same rate."
¶ 10 The court certified the matter as a class action and defined the class as all past and present firefighters of the City of Billings who work or worked under the 27-day work schedule. The complaint was amended to include dozens more firefighters.
¶ 11 A bench trial was held on May 3 and 4, 2005, to determine damages. Based on the court's prior conclusion that the post-1995 agreement was an hourly wage contract, the court found at trial that the Firefighters worked approximately 2,272 hours per year but were paid for only 2,080 hours per year, and thus concluded they were entitled to recover for wages and benefits associated with the unpaid hours. The court further concluded that the City did not breach its duty to maintain proper payroll records, and that the records were not falsified or intentionally misleading. The court assessed a penalty against the City in the amount of 8.45 percent of the unpaid wages. After a hearing on the amount of attorney fees and costs, the court awarded $625,000 in attorney fees to the Firefighters, declining to award the full one-third contingency fee the Firefighters requested. The court awarded $3,972.98 in costs, although the Firefighters requested $60,154.72. The City appeals the order granting the Firefighters' motion for partial summary judgment and from the court's judgment awarding damages in the amount of $3,075,590.30, an 8.45 percent penalty in the amount of $253,000, and the above-mentioned attorney fees, and costs. The Firefighters cross-appeal the amount of damages for unpaid wages and leave time, and the amount of the penalty, attorney fees and costs. Other facts will be discussed below as necessary.
¶ 12 This Court's standard of review of a district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo. Tefft v. State, 271 Mont. 82, 88, 894 P.2d 317, 321 (1995). A grant of summary judgment is proper only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tacke v. Energy West, Inc.
......Billings. The seminar spurred several management employees to question Tacke's classification as an exempt ...City of Bozeman, 279 Mont. 507, 510, 928 P.2d 228, 229-30 (1996) (citation omitted). . ...Section 1-3-225, MCA. Our decision in Kuhr v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 201, 338 Mont. 402, 168 P.3d 615, provides helpful guidance. In ......
-
Gendron v. Mont. Univ. Sys.
......Heenan, Heenan & Cook, Billings, MontanaFor Amicus Montana Defense Trial Lawyers: Matthew B. Hayhurst, Randy J. Tanner, Boone ...Stimac v. State , 248 Mont. 412, 417, 812 P.2d 1246, 1249 (1991). See also Kuhr v. City of Billings , 2007 MT 201, ¶ 41, 338 Mont. 402, 168 P.3d 615 (affirming district court’s ......
-
Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
......Legare, Legare Law Office; Billings, Montana. . For Appellees: Calvin J. Stacey; Stacey & Funyak; Billings, Montana. . ...The Jockeys assert that this rule supports their reading of § 23-4-205, MCA. Citing Kuhr v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 201, ¶ 29, 338 Mont. 402, 168 P.3d 615, the Jockeys further contend ......
-
Total Indus. Plant Servs., Inc. v. Turner Indus. Grp., LLC
...or by rule of court.” Roseneau Foods v. Coleman, 140 Mont. 572, 580, 374 P.2d 87 (1962) (emphasis added); accord Kuhr v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 201, ¶ 37, 338 Mont. 402, 168 P.3d 615;Springer v. Becker, 284 Mont. 267, 275, 949 P.2d 641 (1997); Masonovich v. School Dist., 178 Mont. 138, 1......