Bryant v. Southern Screw Mach. Products Co., Inc., 85-242

Decision Date28 April 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-242,85-242
Citation707 S.W.2d 321,288 Ark. 602
Parties, 105 Lab.Cas. P 55,632 Verlon BRYANT, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Lesly W. Mattingly, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Allen, Cabe & Lester by H. William Allen, Little Rock, for appellee.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

The appellant was employed by the appellee as a toolmaker and foreman for a total of about 21 years. He was discharged in 1984 for having allegedly accepted a $100 check in return for having ordered light bulbs for the appellee from a particular company, which sent him the check. Bryant brought this action against the appellee for damages for wrongful discharge and also for the outrageous but unspecified manner in which he was discharged. The appellee moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had been an employee at will and could be discharged without cause. See Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433, 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982). The motion was denied.

Upon trial the appellee again asserted its position in a motion for a directed verdict, but the trial court let both causes of action go to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff on the issue of wrongful discharge and awarded $65,000 in damages, but found for the defendant on the issue of outrageous conduct. The defendant reasserted its position in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court granted that motion and entered judgment for the defendant, holding that the court had made an error of law in permitting the jury to find that there was an enforceable contract of employment between the parties. The appeal was taken to this court as presenting a tort question.

The only argument for reversal is that the trial court should not have entered judgment n.o.v. on the basis of the employment-at-will doctrine.

The trial court's action was correct. In the Griffin case, supra, we adhered to our settled rule that a contract of employment for an indefinite term is a contract at will, with either party having an absolute right to terminate the relationship at any time. Here Bryant introduced no substantial evidence that his employment was anything other than indefinite as to its duration. He submitted proof that in 1979, after he had been employed for many years, the company distributed an Employee Handbook which stated that after a probationary period of 60 days an employee would be entitled to all fringe benefits. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • D'Angelo v. Gardner
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1991
    ...status thereafter, has no effect on the at-will nature of the employment contract with Jones. See Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Co., 288 Ark. 602, 707 S.W.2d 321 (1986) (specified probationary period in handbook, followed by entitlement to company benefits and indication of cert......
  • Kimble v. Pulaski County Special School Dist.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 1996
    ...Greetings Corp., supra; Proctor v. East Central Arkansas EOC, 291 Ark. 265, 724 S.W.2d 163 (1987); Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Co., 288 Ark. 602, 707 S.W.2d 321 (1986); and Riceland Foods, Inc. v. Director of Labor, 38 Ark.App. 269, 832 S.W.2d 295 We do not believe that the Pu......
  • Stow v. Cochran
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 1, 1987
    ...specified length of time. Rather to the contrary, it confirms the employee's right to quit."); cf. Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Co., 288 Ark. 602, 707 S.W.2d 321, 322 (1986) (provision in employee handbook that after 60-day probationary period employee entitled to certain fring......
  • Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hosp.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1987
    ...cause for discharge. That does not meet what we have said we were willing to review. See Bryant v. Southern Screw Machine Products Company, Inc., 288 Ark. 602, 707 S.W.2d 321 (1986). Ms. Samples also contends the hospital breached provisions of the manual guaranteeing certain steps would be......
  • 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