Hogue v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co.
Decision Date | 11 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 21406,21406 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | , 8 IER Cases 1037 Charles HOGUE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. CECIL I. WALKER MACHINERY COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "Contractual provisions relating to discharge or job security may alter the at will status of a particular employee." Syllabus Point 3, Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W.Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986).
2. "A promise of job security contained in an employee handbook distributed by an employer to its employees constitutes an offer for a unilateral contract; and an employee's continuing to work, while under no obligation to do so, constitutes an acceptance and sufficient consideration to make the employer's promise binding and enforceable." Syllabus Point 5, Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W.Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986).
3. "An employee handbook may form the basis of a unilateral contract if there is a definite promise therein by the employer not to discharge covered employees except for specified reasons." Syllabus Point 6, Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W.Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986).
4. An employer may modify or revoke prior personnel manuals or policies that have created express or implied contract rights as to job security and establish in a subsequent personnel manual or policy that the employment is one at-will. When such a change is made, the employer must give reasonable notice of the change to the employees.
5. Syllabus Point 5, Adkins v. Inco Alloys International, Inc., 187 W.Va. 219, 417 S.E.2d 910 (1992).
George Lantz, Lantz & Tebay, Parkersburg, for appellee.
Fred F. Holroyd, Holroyd & Yost, Charleston, for appellant.
This appeal was brought by the defendant below, Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company (Walker) from a final judgment entered on December 11, 1991, by the Circuit Court of Wood County, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff below, Charles E. Hogue, in an action for wrongful discharge. The plaintiff claimed that his discharge was in violation of Walker's personnel policies set forth in its employee handbook dated February 1, 1981. By special interrogatories the jury found, at the time the plaintiff was terminated, an employment agreement existed "containing a definite promise not to discharge plaintiff except for specified reasons[.]" In addition, the jury found that the two revised versions of the handbook, one issued on August 1, 1986, and the other issued on January 1, 1989, did not apply to the plaintiff's termination. The key issue presented in the case is whether the later revisions of Walker's personnel handbook modified its initial handbook which did not contain a specific disclaimer to the effect that employment was only on an at-will basis.
Mr. Hogue was hired by Walker in September of 1973 to work as a mechanic. At that time, Mr. Hogue was a member of a union, but he did not have an individual employment contract with Walker. On February 1, 1981, the first of three employee handbooks was issued to Mr. Hogue. In 1982 or 1983, Mr. Hogue was promoted from an hourly employee to a branch manager which is a salaried position. At the time of the promotion, the 1981 handbook was in effect. Walker revised its 1981 handbook and issued a second handbook to its employees on August 1, 1986. The handbook was revised a third time and distributed by Walker on January 1, 1989. In March of 1989, Walker terminated Mr. Hogue's employment.
All three versions of the handbook concluded with a section specifically reserving the right to make periodic revisions "to reflect changes in policies, procedures, and benefits." However, both of the revised handbooks issued in 1986 and 1989 contained disclaimers in the beginning of the handbooks which read: Similarly, the last sentence in the revised handbooks provides: "Employees are reminded again, that this handbook is not to be considered a contract of employment or a guarantee of rights or benefits, as these must change as business requires."
We recognized in Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W.Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986), that an employment relationship that is not based on a contract or governed by statutory provisions is ordinarily an at-will employment and can be terminated by either party. We stated:
176 W.Va. at 372, 342 S.E.2d at 457. (Citation and emphasis omitted).
However, in Syllabus Points 3, 5, and 6 of Cook v. Heck's Inc., supra, we set out some of the methods by which an at-will employment might be changed to give contractual rights to an employee:
In setting out these principles, we followed other jurisdictions which have held that an employer may be bound by provisions, express or implied, in employee handbooks or policy manuals with respect to job security and termination proceedings, and we cited the following cases:
176 W.Va. at 372, 342 S.E.2d at 457.
See also Reed v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 188 W.Va. 747, 426 S.E.2d 539 (1992); Adkins v. Inco Alloys Int'l, Inc., 187 W.Va. 219, 417 S.E.2d 910 (1992); Collins v. Elkay Mining Co., 179 W.Va. 549, 371 S.E.2d 46 (1988).
Subsequently, in Suter v. Harsco Corp., 184 W.Va. 734, 403 S.E.2d 751 (1991), we were presented with a situation in which an employment application contained a prominent disclaimer stating that the employee, if hired, understood that the employment was for no definite period and that it could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. We determined that such a disclaimer was effective and it was not necessary that it be placed in the employer's personnel manual in order to be effectual. 1
More recently in Williamson v. Sharvest Management Co., 187 W.Va. 30, 415 S.E.2d 271 (1992), we dealt with the issue of whether the manager of a convenience food store had a lifetime contract. His employer gave him a written memorandum which listed the monthly salary, the daily hours of operation of the store, the right to participate in a profit sharing plan, and a Christmas bonus based on performance. It contained nothing as to the terms of employment or the right to discharge. The employer terminated the manager for poor performance, and the manager sued and recovered damages based on his claim of a lifetime contract. We rejected this claim stating that the proof was insufficient: "Courts have recognized that lifetime employment contracts are extraordinary and that an offer for lifetime employment must be expressed in clear and unequivocal terms before a court will conclude that an employer intended to enter into such a weighty obligation." 187 W.Va. at 33, 415 S.E.2d at 274. (Citations omitted).
As yet, we have not had occasion to address the question of whether an employer may supersede an earlier handbook, which gave express or clearly implied contract rights limiting termination, by issuing a subsequent personnel handbook which contains clear language disclaiming the employment relationship as other than at-will. In several other jurisdictions where the issue has been considered, courts have concluded that a subsequent handbook when issued to employees will alter the earlier handbook. For example, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that such a subsequent alteration was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Demasse v. ITT Corp.
...to the manual, even though a particular amendment was not bargained for at the point of hire. Hogue v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co., 189 W.Va. 348, 431 S.E.2d 687, 691 (1993); In re Certified Question (Bankey) v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 432 Mich.438, 443 N.W.2d 112, 120 (1989); Pine River......
-
Asmus v. Pacific Bell
...(relying upon Bankey and authorities that did not concern the modification of an existing agreement); Hogue v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co. (1993) 189 W.Va. 348, 431 S.E.2d 687, 690-691 (relying upon Bankey and policy reasons); Trombley v. Southwestern V. Med. Center (Vt.1999) 738 A.2d 103......
-
Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc.
...its right to change its policies and rules at any time, which is, of course, management's prerogative. Hogue v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co., 189 W.Va. 348, 431 S.E.2d 687 (1993). Retaining the right to make changes, however, does not necessarily mean promises explicitly or implicitly made......
-
Citizens Telecomms. Co. of W. Va. v. Sheridan
...assent in the context of an employer's modifications to its unilateral contract with employees in Hogue v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company , 189 W.Va. 348, 431 S.E.2d 687 (1993). In Hogue , we held that "a subsequent modification may be made unilaterally by the employer, but to make the m......
-
Chapter 9
...Paper Co., 102 Wash. 2d 219, 685 P.2d 1081, 116 L.R.R.M. 3142, 1 I.E.R. Cases 392 (1984). West Virginia: Hogue v. Walker Machine Co., 189 W. Va. 348, 431 S.E.2d 687, 8 I.E.R. Cases 1037 (1993). Wisconsin: Clay v. Horton Mfg. Co., 172 Wis. 2d 349, 493 N.W.2d 379, 7 I.E.R. Cases 1544 (Wis. Ap......
-
William B. Gould Iv, Kissing Cousins?: the Federal Arbitration Act and Modern Labor Arbitration
...S.E.2d 428, 430-31 (Va. 1992); Gaglidari v. Denny's Rest., Inc., 815 P.2d 1362, 1367 (Wash. 1991); Hogue v. Cecil I. Walker Mach. Co., 431 S.E.2d 687, 691 (W. Va. 1993). States that do not permit modification are Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, and Wyoming. Demasse v. ITT Corp., 984 P.2d 11......