 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brandenburger v. Hilti3/27/1989
mployee, policy forms or oral representations will not alter the terms for discharge:
"Where such mutual assent is lacking, the handbook or other supplementary materials merely constitute a unilateral statement of company rules and regulations. [Citation omitted.] * * * unilateral statement of company rules and regulations do not constitute an employment agreement and, therefore, no action in contract arises out of a violation of such rules or regulations." Turner, slip op., at 5.
In the case sub judice, plaintiff relies on two policy memoranda to argue he could be discharged only for just cause. The first policy memorandum, entitled "Human Resources Manual" on termination provides in relevant part as follows:
"Employee Initiated Termination
"* * *
"2.3 Discharge for cause, such as: insubordination, absence without leave, divulging confidential Company information, fraudulent application for employment, damage to Company property, dishonesty, theft, commercial bribery or aggressive, abusive, or hostile behavior toward other employees."
Plaintiff then testified he never engaged in or was accused of any of the conduct enumerated under Section 2.3 of the termination manual. However, the termination manual further states as follows:
"Company Initiated Terminations
"* * *
"3.3 Inability of the employee to perform his/her responsibilities in a satisfactory manner after counseling and assessment by management."
Plaintiff further relies upon a Hilti policy memorandum on discipline to argue he could be discharged only for just cause. The memorandum provides for a progressive disciplinary procedure which should be followed before discharging a Hilti employee . Plaintiff testified, and defendant admitted, the steps outlined in the policy memorandum were not followed in his case.
Both of Hilti's policy memoranda apply to only "Policy Manual Holders." However, nothing in the record reveals plaintiff received a policy manual from Hilti. Furthermore, if plaintiff did receive the manual, there is no evidence plaintiff signed an attestation clause receiving the manual or agreeing to its terms. Neither of Hilti's policy memoranda establishes a "meeting of the minds" between plaintiff and Hilti. Simply stated, neither policy memoranda contains any language which can be construed as a distinct and common intention to create a contract of employment between the parties. Cohen, supra, at 24, 24 OBR at 46, 492 N.E.2d at 870. Thus, the policy manuals of defendant cannot be relied upon by plaintiff to establish the necessity of following the disciplinary steps prior to discharge or to discharge plaintiff only for just cause. In fact, plaintiff testified he was never told that he could or would be terminated only for just cause.
Plaintiff also argues an implied employment contract was created between the parties from two statements made to plaintiff by Hilti employees. The first statement occurred when plaintiff became a foreman for Hilti. Plaintiff inquired as to what kind of job protection he would have and was told by Hilti's management: "As long as I did a good job, I would have a job." The second statement was made tsplaintiff by William Vannucci. Vannucci frequently told plaintiff: "Take one drink and you're out the door."
Construing these statements most strongly in plaintiff's favor as required by Civ. R. 50(A)(4), we must assume plaintiff established an implied contract of employment between himself and Hilti. Thus plaintiff could be discharged from Hilti only for just cause. See Mers, supra.
Plaintiff admitted his employment at Hilti's J
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|