Hermreck v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-128,96-128 |
| Citation | 938 P.2d 863 |
| Parties | Stan HERMRECK, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Appellee (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Bernard Q. Phelan, of Phelan Law Offices, Cheyenne, for Appellant.
Steven K. Sharpe and Stephen N. Goodrich, of Nicholas Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, for Appellee.
Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.
The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether a public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine can be invoked to challenge the termination of an employee whose employment was subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Stan Hermreck (Hermreck) was discharged from his position as a driver for United Parcel Service (UPS) for dishonesty in filling out his time cards. Hermreck filed a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, and the grievance panel that heard the matter upheld the discharge. Hermreck then filed this action against UPS alleging that his discharge was wrongful because it was in retaliation for his reporting of violations of the Wyoming Occupational Safety & Health Act by UPS. He also sought to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court ruled that the wrongful discharge claim was foreclosed because a public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine cannot be invoked if the position is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and Hermreck had not demonstrated the requisite degree of severe emotional distress to justify a trial on that claim for relief. The district court also ruled that the claim could not be maintained because Hermreck had failed to pursue other available remedies. A summary judgment was entered in favor of UPS, which we affirm.
In the Brief of Appellant, Hermreck states that the issues are:
1. Does the existence of a grievance process in a collective bargaining agreement provide "another remedy" precluding an action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy?
2. Does the existence of a complaint procedure contained in an administrative regulation provide "another remedy" precluding an action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy?
3. Is a state law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy stated in a case where the Surface Transportation Assistance Act sets forth public policy?
In the Brief of Appellee United Parcel Service, Inc., the issues to be resolved are stated in this way:
1. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Appellee United Parcel Service, Inc. on Appellant's claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy, because:
A. The "public policy exception" to the at will employment doctrine has no application to employees, like Appellant, who are not at will and who are protected by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement;
B. Even if the "public policy exception" applied regardless of employment status, the grievance and hearing remedy in the collective bargaining agreement provides "another remedy" to Appellant, precluding his cause of action;
C. The Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 also provide Appellant with "other remedies," precluding his cause of action; and
D. Appellant's retaliatory discharge claim is barred by a one year statute of limitations?
Hermreck was employed as a truck driver for UPS for nearly thirteen years. On January 7, 1994 UPS terminated Hermreck's employment after it was discovered that Hermreck had manipulated his time cards from January 3, 1994 to January 6, 1994. When he was discharged, Hermreck was a member of a union, and his employment was subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between UPS and Hermreck's labor organization. The collective bargaining agreement provided Hermreck with the right to file a grievance and have a hearing to contest the decision by UPS to terminate him. Hermreck did file a grievance and sought a hearing on his discharge.
Approximately one month after Hermreck was discharged, a grievance panel, composed of both union and company representatives, held a hearing on the grievance that Hermreck filed. To support its claim that "just cause" existed for Hermreck's termination, UPS introduced evidence that Hermreck had been followed between January 3, 1994 and January 6, 1994 for the purpose of monitoring his work activities. The evidence established that Hermreck had been discharged after UPS discovered discrepancies between his time card and the time that UPS actually observed him performing his duties of employment. The evidence also demonstrated that Hermreck failed to record breaks during this time period. The hearing record contains nothing relating to a claim of retaliatory discharge. At the conclusion of that hearing, the grievance panel upheld the decision by UPS to terminate Hermreck, ruling that just cause did exist for his termination and that UPS had not violated the collective bargaining agreement.
The only claim that Hermreck argues in his brief is that the district court erred in granting a summary judgment to UPS on his claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy. He does not challenge the dismissal of his claim for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the absence of any claim of error, briefing or argument, we hold that the dismissal of the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress has been conceded by Hermreck, and the district court's ruling on that action stands. Weston County Hosp. Joint Powers Bd. v. Westates Construction Co., 841 P.2d 841, 850 (Wyo.1992); Epple v. Clark, 804 P.2d 678, 681 (Wyo.1991); Prazma v. Kaehne, 768 P.2d 586, 588 (Wyo.1989), citing Zanetti v. Zanetti, 689 P.2d 1116, 1123 (Wyo.1984).
The only issue for us to determine is whether any error was committed by the district court in granting a summary judgment to UPS. The summary judgment was premised upon the ruling by the district court that the claim for retaliatory discharge presented by Hermreck was foreclosed because a public policy exception based upon the employment at will doctrine is not available in an instance such as this in which the employment is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. In Brinkman v. State, 224 Mont. 238, 729 P.2d 1301 (1986), the Supreme Court of Montana, relying upon its earlier case of Small v. McRae, 200 Mont. 497, 651 P.2d 982 (1982), and federal cases held that Brinkman's claim that he was discharged in violation of public policy did not further a state interest that would transcend the policy of supporting the employment contract . The Montana court pointed out that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mueller v. Zimmer
...We review questions of law de novo without affording deference to the decision of the district court. Hermreck v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 938 P.2d 863, 866 (Wyo.1997); Griess v. Office of the Atty. Gen., Div. of Criminal Investigation, 932 P.2d 734, 736 According to our established sta......
-
Byrd v. Voca Corp. of Washington, D.C.
...only to at-will employees include, e.g., Stiles v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 335 S.C. 222, 516 S.E.2d 449 (1999); Hermreck v. United Parcel Serv., 938 P.2d 863 (Wyo.1997); Luethans v. Washington Univ., 894 S.W.2d 169 (Mo.1995); Cullen v. E.H. Friedrich Co., 910 F.Supp. 815, 821 (D.Mass.1995) ......
-
Smith v. Bates Technical College
...an action for the tort of wrongful discharge is available only when the employment relationship is at-will."); Hermreck v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 938 P.2d 863, 867 (Wyo.1997) ("Where an employment contract is present, there does not exist any necessity for invoking a separate action for......
-
Doll v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.
...Other jurisdictions have held that a party to a CBA or other employment contract cannot assert such a claim. See Hermreck v. United Parcel Service, 938 P.2d 863, 866 (Wyo.1997); Luethans v. Washington University, 894 S.W.2d 169, 172-73 (Mo.1995); Silva v. Albuquerque Assembly & Distribution......
-
Chapter 22 - § 22.2 • AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT AND ITS EXCEPTIONS
...Doll v. U.S. W. Commc'ns, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1046-47 (D. Colo. 2000).[23] Id. at 1046 (quoting Hermerck v. United Parcel Serv., 938 P.2d 863, 866 (Wyo. 1997)).[24] See, e.g., Thomas Decker v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Colo., Inc. (Decker I), 931 P.2d 436, 446 (Colo. 1997); Stahl v. ......
-
Smith v. Bates Technical College: Washington Extends the Availability of the Tort of Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, but a Little Too Far: Employees Should Still Exhaust Other Remedies
...Id. at 515. 81. See id. (citing Vigil v. Arizona, 699 P.2d 613, 619 (N.M. 1983)). 82. 503 A.2d 36 (Pa. 1986). 83. Id. at 38. 84. Id. 85. 938 P.2d 863 (Wyo. 1997). 86. Id. at 866. 87. See Scott v. Sisco Food Servs., No. Civ A 99-2150, 1999 WL 554599 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 1999) (finding that the......