Johnson v. National Beef Packing Co.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1976
• Docket Number: No. 47965,47965
• Citation: 220 Kan. 52,551 P.2d 779
• Parties: , 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 5033 Lenard JOHNSON, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 779

551 P.2d 779

220 Kan. 52, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 5033

Lenard JOHNSON, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 47965.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

June 12, 1976.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In the absence of a contract, express or implied, between an employee and his employer covering the duration of employment, the employment is terminable at the will of either party, and the employee states no cause of action for breach of contract by alleging that he had been discharged.

2. In an action for damages for discharge from employment brought by a discharged employee against his former employer, the record is examined and it is held: The trial court did not err in determining the evidence did not establish a contract, express or implied, covering the duration of employment and in rendering summary judgment for defendant.

Harold K. Greenleaf, Jr., of Smith & Greenleaf, Liberal, for appellant.

Gene H. Sharp, of Vance, Hobble, Neubauer, Nordling & Sharp, Liberal, argued, and Richard R. Rock, of Rock & Smith, Arkansas City, was with him on the brief for appellee.

KAUL, Justice:

This action was instituted by plaintiff-appellant, Lenard Johnson, against his former employer, defendant-appellee, for loss of wages and punitive damages for the alleged wrongful discharge from his employment.

The dispositive issue presented is whether there was a contract express or implied for a fixed term of employment. The appeal is from a summary judgment in favor of defendant rendered after interrogatories of several witnesses and the deposition of plaintiff had been filed. When defendant's motion for summary judgment was presented to the trial court, the parties stipulated that all of the evidence relating to the terms of the contract of employment was before the court.

In the fall of 1971 plaintiff quit his employment with a meat packing plant in Iowa. Plaintiff knew there was a packing plant in Liberal, Kansas, and came there in September 1971 and sought employment from defendant. Plaintiff filed an employment application with defendant and was hired on October 12, 1971. Plaintiff's account of the only conversation he had with a representative of defendant, at the time of his employment, was that he was told that he would be a probationary employee for ninety days and if during that period he could prove that he could lug beef he would become a permanent employee. Plaintiff makes no contention, nor was there any evidence, that the duration of his employment was agreed upon or ever discussed and no written contract was executed. In his deposition plaintiff acknowledged that his understanding of the terms of his employment was 'I had the right to quit at any time I wanted to.'

Plaintiff worked as a 'beef lugger' until March 1972, when he injured his shoulder in the course of his duties. We were informed on oral argument plaintiff was awarded workmen's compensation benefits for this injury. Subsequent to the shoulder injury, plaintiff was transferred to a different job which involved stacking boxes and loading trucks. Plaintiff was later transferred to a position entitled 'manifestor,' which involved the recording of the shipments which were loaded on respective trucks. Plaintiff continued to work on the manifestor job until a few days prior to his termination when he was temporarily assigned to another job which entailed some heavier lifting. Plaintiff informed his supervisor that he was unable to lug the beef which he was required to do on this last job, and as a result thereof was discharged several days later, on October 7, 1972.

Plaintiff relates the events preceding his discharge in these words:

'. . . On Thursday and Friday prior to my termination I went in and told Rod Allen that the work was bothering my shoulder. On the morning of my termination we were loading a truck with rounds and the whole gang was working. I was instructed to lug the rounds by Chuck Watson. I didn't refuse him; I told him my shoulder wouldn't take it. I also talked to my lead man, Dennis McCarty, and he instructed me to load the rounds. I told him my shoulder wouldn't take it, and then Chuck Watson took me to the office and told me he would get my time made out. . . .'

This litigation ensued and following summary judgment for defendant plaintiff appealed stating his one point in these words:

'The Court erroneously granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and in ruling that a fixed period of time is necessary for Plaintiff, in this instance, to sustain his claim for damages; and in failing to rule that the various exhibits, A through F, and in particular the National Beef Packing Company Policy Manual constituted an implied contract of employment if, in fact, they did not constitute an express contract of employment.'

This court follows the general rule that in the absence of a contract, express or implied, between an employee and his employer covering the duration of employment, the employment is terminable at the will of either party, and the employee states no cause of action for breach of contract by alleging that he has been discharged. (Johnston v. Farmers Alliznce Mutual Ins. Co., 218 Kan. 543, 545 P.2d 312; Lorson v. Falcon Coach, Inc., 214 Kan. 670, 522 P.2d 449; May v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 189 Kan. 419, 370 P.2d 390; Swart v. Huston, 154 Kan. 182, 117 P.2d 576; and 53 Am.Jur.2d Master and Servant, § 43, pp. 117-118.)

Plaintiff concedes the rule to be controlling in Kansas, but attempts to escape the application thereof by arguing that a 'Company Policy Manual,' distributed to employees during plaintiff's employment, constituted an express contract or served as a basis for establishing a contract of employment by implication. The record discloses that the policy manual was published and distributed to employees sometime in late spring or summer of 1972, some nine or ten months after the commencement of plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff points out a statement in the manual 'No employee shall be dismissed without just cause.' Plaintiff also relies on a statement in one of defendant's advertisements that 'This is not seasonal employment . . .' Plaintiff argues that the statements referred to were binding on defendant in its employment relationship, and that they fix the employment duration at life or until an employee reaches retirement age.

A copy of the manual has been supplied to us with the record on appeal. It appears to be a...