Fish v. Ford Motor Co., E-86-58

• Decision Date: 14 August 1987
• Docket Number: No. E-86-58,E-86-58
• Citation: 534 N.E.2d 911,41 Ohio App.3d 113
• Parties: FISH, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 113

41 Ohio App.3d 113

534 N.E.2d 911

FISH, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee. ^*

No. E-86-58.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Erie County.

Aug. 14, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

An employee who submits suggestions or proposals to his employer pursuant to an "employee suggestion plan" must abide by the rules set forth in the plan (and must accept the decision of the employer as being final and binding, if the rules so provide).

K. Ronald Bailey, Sandusky, for appellant.

Thompson, Hine & Flory, Keith A. Ashmus, Stephen F. Gladstone and Timothy J. Coughlin, Cleveland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the court on appeal from a decision of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee on November 3, 1986. It is from that judgment that plaintiff-appellant, Larry B. Fish, filed a timely notice of appeal asserting the following assignment of error:

"The trial court erred in the granting of summary judgment against the plaintiff."

The facts leading to the instant appeal can be briefly stated. Appellant is a tool and die maker employed for the past thirty years by defendant-appellee, Ford Motor Company. Under appellee's employee suggestion program, appellant submitted an idea for building a common adapter for carburetors or fuel injection, utilizing a remote air cleaner system. If appellant's idea was accepted, he was eligible for awards up to a maximum of $6,882.

Appellant submitted his first proposal on May 20, 1977. This idea was rejected by appellee on the ground that it was not cost effective and would not work. On August 28, 1980, appellant resubmitted the idea, and again appellee rejected the idea. On February 1, 1982, appellant submitted his idea for the third time. Prior to this third submission, appellee began using this idea in certain models of cars. Appellee first used this idea in the 1982 Ford Escort. On June 28, 1982, appellee gave appellant final rejection of the idea for the following reasons:

"Additional components (bennet, hose with sealing ends) reduced performance of hot and cold system. Additional cost for extra parts. On a conventional system (carburetor) it is cheaper to mount an air cleaner on the engine that [sic ] go remote. Additionally, a hot air system loses its effectiveness if it gets very far away from intake manifold. Engine sizes and packaging constraints complicate this issue further."

Appellee did not give appellant a cash award but presented him with a certificate of award for his proposal on September 2, 1983 in recognition of his contribution to the improvement of operations in the Ford Motor Company. Appellant initiated this claim for compensation based upon appellee's failure to award monetary recognition for his idea. Upon appellee's motion for summary judgment, the motion was granted and the complaint dismissed.

The standard for granting summary judgment consists of three criteria:

" * * * (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor." Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 8 O.O.3d 73, 74, 375 N.E.2d 46, 47.

The issue at hand is whether appellant is entitled to a monetary award under the employee suggestion plan.

In September 1956, appellant signed an employment agreement and began working for appellee. The employment agreement contained a clause which conveyed ownership of any invention, discovery or improvement made, conceived or developed by appellant to the company. Each time appellant submitted his idea through the suggestion plan he signed documents with similar clauses. The suggestion plan documents also contained an additional clause which stated:

"I agree that any decision made by my employer regarding eligibility, adoption, rejection, award or commendation with reference to my idea shall be final and binding, and that my employer shall have the right to withdraw or change the program at any time."

The signing of these four documents (the employment agreement and the three proposal plan documents) created a contractual relationship between appellant and appellee. Under the terms of this contract, appellee's decision regarding compensation was final and binding.

One jurisdiction in Ohio has addressed the validity of an employee suggestion program contract and determined that the employer's decision is final and binding. In Alderton v. Armco, Inc. (1985), 25 OBR 55, 57 , the Court of Appeals for Butler County stated: " * * * By submitting his suggestions to Armco, [the plaintiff] * * * submitted to the terms of that suggestion program. * * * " Other state's courts have also upheld suggestion program contracts, such as a Washington appellate court which held that the employer's decision was final and binding based upon the following:

" * * * By the terms of the present suggestion system, there were no limits on the authority of the committee.

" * * *

" * * * The employee knew [payment was within the discretion of the employer] * * * and proceeded under the rules of the employer's suggestion system nevertheless. * * * " Calkins v. Boeing Co. (1973), 8 Wash.App. 347, 352-353, 506 P.2d 329, 332.

Courts in California and New York have also found suggestion program contracts to be...