Terry v. Board of Regents of Higher Educ.
| Citation | 220 Mont. 214,714 P.2d 151,43 St.Rep. 304 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-375,85-375 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
| Parties | , 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1148, 106 Lab.Cas. P 55,724, 30 Ed. Law Rep. 948 Ernest TERRY, Petitioner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated past and present employees of defendants, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION of the State of Montana and Montana State University, Defendants and Respondents. |
James M. Kommers, Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers and Johnstone, Bozeman, for plaintiff and appellant.
Roger N. Flair, Montana State University, Bozeman, William Richardson, Dept. of Labor & Industry, Helena, for defendants and respondents.
Ernest Terry, the plaintiff, appeals a Gallatin County District Court order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The District Court upheld an administrative decision of the Labor Standards Division and determined that the plaintiff was a farm worker and an employee employed in agriculture and therefore exempt from the overtime provision of § 39-3-405(1), MCA. On appeal, plaintiff raises issues concerning judicial review of an administrative decision, his status as an employee of the University and the certification of this action as a class action suit. We affirm the order of the District Court upholding the administrative decision and granting judgment to the defendant. Therefore, we do not reach the third issue in this appeal.
The plaintiff worked at an Agricultural Experiment Station for Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana from October 1979 through March 1982. He was employed as an agricultural research technician, commonly referred to as a beef herdsman. During the term of his employment, the plaintiff resided on the Gerwin Farm or Gerwin Block. This is a 160 acre farm purchased by the University in 1957 as part of its Agricultural Experiment Station.
The plaintiff's duties as a beef herdsman consisted of the care and maintenance of the resident beef herd. He fed the cattle, provided them with salt and minerals, helped deliver calves, maintained fences and assisted with artificial insemination chores. He also maintained records necessary for the management of the herd. His duties were similar in nature to those duties on any cattle farm or ranch.
In April 1982, the plaintiff submitted a claim to the Department of Labor and Industry for alleged unpaid overtime wages. The Department held a hearing on September 23, 1982, before a hearing officer of the Labor Commission. The hearing officer dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that he was a farm worker and exempt from the overtime provisions of § 39-3-405(1), MCA. After hearing oral argument on appeal, the District Court remanded the case back to the Department "for additional testimony on the nature and extent of the Gerwin Research Farm." It took the defendant's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment under advisement.
The Department reheard the matter on November 30, 1983. After hearing additional testimony and receiving further evidence from both parties, the hearing officer concluded that plaintiff was an agricultural employee performing labor on a farm or ranch and thus was exempt from the overtime requirement of § 39-3-405(1), MCA. He also concluded that the Gerwin Research Farm, even though it was part of an Agricultural Experiment Station and owned by the University, was a farm or ranch for the purposes of determining overtime exemptions under Montana's Minimum Wage and Overtime Act, §§ 39-3-401, et seq., MCA.
After these findings and conclusions were transmitted to the District Court, the defendant renewed its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The District Court, after a hearing, granted the defendant's motion. Judgment in favor of the defendant was entered on April 23, 1985.
Plaintiff appeals and raises three issues:
(1) Did the District Court err when it upheld the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Department of Labor and Industry?
(2) Is plaintiff, as an employee of Montana State University working at an Agricultural Experiment Station, either exempted or excluded from the overtime provisions of § 39-3-405(1), MCA?
(3) Should this action be certified as a class action to adjudicate wage claims of all those persons in positions similar to this plaintiff's position?
The Montana legislature set out the scope and standard of judicial review of an administrative agency's decision in § 2-4-704, MCA, part of Montana's Administrative Procedure Act. The relevant portions of that section state:
(1) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, proof thereof may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.
(2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
* * *
(d) affected by other error of law;
(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; [or]
(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion ...
This Court has defined these standards further in case law. Findings are binding on the court and not "clearly erroneous" if supported by "substantial, credible evidence in the record." City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521 (1982), 200 Mont. 421, 431, 651 P.2d 627, 632. Appellants carry the burden of showing prejudice from a clearly erroneous decision. See, e.g., Carruthers v. Board of Horse Racing (Mont.1985), 700 P.2d 179, 181, 42 St.Rep. 729, 732.
Plaintiff contends, as part of his first issue, that some of the administrative agency's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and are therefore clearly erroneous. In particular, he challenges the findings characterizing the Gerwin Farm and the Agricultural Experiment Station as engaging in farming or ranching and characterizing his duties as similar to those of any other farm or ranch worker. Section 39-3-402(4), MCA, defines a farm or ranch as:
... any endeavor primarily engaged in cultivating the soil or in connection with raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity, including the raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training and management of livestock, bees, and poultry and fur-bearing animals and wildlife. (Emphasis added.)
This description does not require that the employer be a farm or ranch or even primarily engaged in those listed activities. This description focuses on the activities at the situs of the work. So long as the endeavor engaged in at the particular location consists of one or more of the purposes in § 39-3-402(4), MCA, the location is a "farm or ranch" for the purposes of Title 39, Chapter 3, Part 4, MCA, on minimum wage and overtime compensation. The testimony heard on remand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of State of Montana
... ... ] reversed a prior decision of the State Tax Appeal Board (STAB). We reverse the District Court's order ... prejudice from a clearly erroneous decision." Terry v. Board of Regents of Higher Education (1986), 220 Mont ... ...
-
Swan Corp. v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, Liquor Div.
... ... State (Mont.1986), 729 P.2d 1310, 43 St.Rep. 2180; Terry v. Board of Regents of Higher Education (Mont.1986), 714 ... ...