Bauer v. American Freight System, Inc.

Decision Date20 November 1987
Docket NumberNo. 15809,15809
Citation422 N.W.2d 435,56 USLW 2680
Parties, 3 IER Cases 386 James A. BAUER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., Defendant and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Wayne F. Gilbert of Banks, Johnson, Johnson, Colbath & Huffman, P.C., Rapid City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Michael M. Hickey of Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, Rapid City, for defendant and appellee.

MILLER, Justice (on reassignment).

James Bauer (Bauer) brought this wrongful termination action against his employer, American Freight System, Inc., (American Freight) after he was terminated in November 1985. The trial court granted American Freight's summary judgment motion and Bauer appeals. We affirm.

FACTS

Since Bauer began his employment with American Freight in 1977 he transferred several times and had been a sales representative and sales manager. At the time he was terminated he was in the management level position of terminal manager/sales manager at the Rapid City, South Dakota terminal. He was within eighteen months of being fully vested in American Freight's Retirement Income Security Program. Bauer did not have an individual written employment contract with American Freight.

At the time of Bauer's termination American Freight had an employee manual that set out many personnel policies. The following sections of that manual are relevant in this appeal:

CODE OF CONDUCT

Every organization must have standards for on-the-job behavior. Violation of the Company's Common sense rules of personal conduct which may result in disciplinary action or discharge include, but are not limited to, the following:

....

5. Failure to perform assigned or required work satisfactorily.

6. Insubordination.

7. Excessive absence; habitual tardiness.

You are an employee of a company performing a public service. Any misconduct which reflects discredit upon you, also reflects discredit upon the Company.

PUNCTUALITY

You will be penalized for tardiness through loss of pay. Tardiness, like absenteeism, detracts from your value as a member of a working team, and is a poor work habit. A record of excessive tardiness will be a factor in appraising your dependability and value to the company, and, after proper warning from your supervisor can result in termination of your employment.

EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS

....

The relationship of the company with its employees is firmly based on the foundation of fair play and just and equitable dealings....

In June 1985, an American Freight employee observed Bauer's company car at a local pool hall during working hours over the course of the summer and fall. This employee and a co-worker began to keep a diary of the observations, which diary disclosed that Bauer was at the pool hall during working hours approximately thirty times in an eight-week period. They reported this to Bauer's supervisors who made further inquiries and who observed Bauer's vehicle at the pool hall during working hours during times he was supposed to be making sales calls. Later, when his supervisors met with Bauer he admitted to spending an "inordinate" amount of time at the pool hall during working hours and that he was not attending to company business.

Bauer was then fired. A form used by American Freight indicated Bauer was terminated for "poor work performance." In depositions, American Freight's management personnel characterized Bauer's conduct in a variety of ways including "not working," "abusing company time," "misuse of time," "poor work performance," "stealing time from the company," and "failing to properly fulfill his job responsibilities."

ISSUES

Whether genuine material issues of fact arise over whether Bauer's employment at will was altered by the employee handbook and, if a contract was created, whether the contract was breached.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is authorized only when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact. SDCL 15-6-56(c); Trapp v. Madera Pacific, Inc., 390 N.W.2d 558, 564 (S.D.1986) citing Nemec v. Deering, 350 N.W.2d 53, 55 (S.D.1984); Caneva v. Miners and Merchants Bank, 335 N.W.2d 339, 341 (S.D.1983). The burden is on the moving party to clearly show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party; thus, reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The remedy is extreme and it is not intended as a substitute for a trial. Trapp, 390 N.W.2d at 562; Wilson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 212, 157 N.W.2d 19, 21 (1968). When no genuine issue of material fact exists in a case, the legal questions may be properly decided by summary judgment. Hamaker v. Kenwel-Jackson Mach., Inc., 387 N.W.2d 515 (S.D.1986). See also SDCL 15-6-56(c). Therefore, we affirm only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. Trapp, supra. Here, the trial court was confronted with mixed questions of fact and law. Therefore, summary judgment was improper....

Bego v. Gordon, 407 N.W.2d 801, 803-4 (S.D.1987); Groseth Intern., Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 159 (S.D.1987).

EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK

Although Bauer's brief sets out numerous handbook provisions, he specifically relies on three promises contained in the handbook as part of the employment contract: (1) a promise to terminate for excessive tardiness only after proper warning from a supervisor; (2) disciplinary action or discharge would take place only after violation of certain enumerated "common sense rules of personal conduct;" and (3) the relationship of the company with its employees is firmly based on the foundation of fair play and just and equitable dealings.

A proper disposition of this case requires a close analysis of our last two cases dealing with this issue, i.e. Osterkamp and Hopes, infra. In Osterkamp v. Alkota Mfg. Inc., 332 N.W.2d 275 (S.D.1983), we reversed a termination of employment because the record clearly indicated that the required procedures for disciplinary action were not utilized. However, in Osterkamp, the employee handbook contained mandatory provisions, including procedural requirements, specific affirmations and specific endorsements of "corrective disciplinary" measures. Clearly under the facts in Osterkamp, the handbook was part of the employment contract.

At the other end of the spectrum is Hopes v. Black Hills Power & Light, 386 N.W.2d 490 (S.D.1986). In Hopes, we held that there existed an employment terminable at will because the company's performance appraisal procedure dealt only with work performance and employee development and had no termination provisions.

American Freight's handbook is more detailed than the one we considered in Hopes, yet it is substantially less explicit than the one dealt with in Osterkamp. It is merely a general information booklet (entitled "Your Company--General Information) which outlines employer expectations, enumerates a code of conduct, and provides an assortment of information regarding personnel matters and general company policies. There are no mandatory provisions and no specified procedure.

As in Hopes, there is no dispute that Bauer had no employment contract and there was no specified term of his employment. Although it contained a general policy statement regarding terminating employees for poor punctuality, the handbook of American Freight has no specific termination provisions and outlines no procedures for termination.

The alleged promise in American Freight's handbook about employee relations being based on "fair play and just and equitable dealings," is too general to confer any specific rights on which a breach of contract claim can be based. "General statements of policy [in a personnel handbook] do not meet the contractual requirement of an offer [sufficient to create an employment contract]." Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 389 N.W.2d 876 (Minn.1986), citing Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622 (Minn.1983); see Hunt v. I.B.M. Mid American Employee's Federal Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853, 857 fn. 8 (Minn.1986); see also L. Larson & P. Borowsky, Unjust Dismissal, Sec. 8.02 fn. 9 (1986).

Nor does the second alleged promise based solely on the handbook's "Code of Conduct" provide any clear procedure for termination, as the provisions did in the Osterkamp handbook. Because the provisions in the code of conduct are a non-exclusive list of common sense rules of behavior that can lead to disciplinary action or discharge, they clearly preserve American Freight's right to discharge an employee-at-will. Jones v. EG & G Idaho, Inc., 111 Idaho 591, 726 P.2d 703 (Idaho 1986); Chin v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 96 Misc.2d 1070, 410 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1978). Moreover, the general termination provisions in the handbook do not contain any procedure for terminating an employee, unlike the very specific provisions applied in Osterkamp. See also, Hopes, supra.

It is immaterial whether Bauer was terminated for excessive or habitual tardiness, failure to satisfactorily perform assigned or required work, insubordination, excessive absence, or whatever. The handbook does not limit discharge to a just cause standard and does not contain any termination guidelines or procedures which American Freight states or agrees they will follow. It does not become part of any employment agreement nor does it alter Bauer's status as an employee at will.

Affirmed.

WUEST, C.J., MORGAN, J., and ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, concur.

SABERS, J., dissents.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, sitting for HENDERSON, J., disqualified.

SABERS, Justice (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion's statement that it is immaterial whether Bauer was terminated for excessive or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Weber v. First Federal Bank
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1994
    ...contracts may be implied from employment handbooks. See Osterkamp v. Alkota, 332 N.W.2d 275 (S.D.1983); Bauer v. American Freight Systems, Inc., 422 N.W.2d 435 (S.D.1988); Butterfield v. Citibank of South Dakota, N.A., 437 N.W.2d 857 (S.D.1989). See generally Jane Wipf Pfeifle and Steven J.......
  • Roberts, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • May 11, 1988
    ... ... 1651, is not a grant of jurisdiction. Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450, 7 S.Ct. 633, 30 L.Ed. 743 (1887); In re ...         This court is a co-equal member of a system of thirteen appellate courts arranged in a single tier. It ... v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 839 F.2d 1544, 1550, 5 USPQ 2d 1779, 1783 (Fed.Cir.1988) ... ...
  • Rood v. General Dynamics Corp.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1993
    ...disciplinary action or discharge, clearly reserves the right of an employer to discharge an employee at will. Bauer v. American Freight System, Inc., 422 N.W.2d 435, 438 (S.D.1988). (Emphasis in Because the policies expressed in the handbook cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise on ......
  • Murphy v. Birchtree Dental, P.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • May 30, 1997
    ...of an employer to discharge an employee at will." Rood at 142, 507 N.W.2d 591 (emphasis in original), citing Bauer v. American Freight System, Inc., 422 N.W.2d 435, 438 (S.D., 1988). However, Rood's holding that such non-inclusive disciplinary provisions are consistent with at will employme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT