Jones v. EG & G Idaho, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1985
• Docket Number: 15831,No. CA-192,CA-192
• Citation: Jones v. EG & G Idaho, Inc., 707 P.2d 511, 109 Idaho 400 (Idaho App. 1985)
• Parties: Robert JONES and Ellis Hemsley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EG & G IDAHO, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

Page 511

707 P.2d 511

109 Idaho 400

Robert JONES and Ellis Hemsley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EG & G IDAHO, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Respondent.

No. CA-192, 15831.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

Oct. 2, 1985.

Spencer E. Daw, Idaho Falls, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Edward W. Pike (argued) and Dona Adams Pike, Albaugh, Pike, Anderson & Storer, Idaho Falls, for defendant-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Jones and Ellis Hemsley, two former employees of EG & G, sued for damages when their employment was terminated. They were fired for misappropriation of company property. The district court entered summary judgment against them. We affirm.

The facts essential to our opinion are not materially in dispute. EG & G is an operating contractor for the United States Department of Energy. It employs persons in diverse trades and occupations. Some categories of employees are entitled to receive special safety shoes at company expense. At times pertinent to this case, appellants Jones and Hemsley were quality control inspectors. The company did not furnish safety shoes to employees in this category. When appellants asked a project manager for authorization to obtain such shoes, their request was denied.

Subsequently, appellants and a third employee obtained a requisition form. In the presence of appellants, the third employee telephoned an immediate supervisor and inquired about the procedure for obtaining safety shoes. The supervisor explained the form and furnished a "charge number," but he said that the "approval signature" space would require the name of the project manager who earlier had denied the appellants' request. At the conclusion of the telephone call, the third employee, while still in the presence of appellants, completed the form and signed the project manager's name. Using the manager's signature on another document for comparison, he drew a facsimile signature. The completed requisition then was used to obtain safety shoes. A company investigation later disclosed these events, and all three employees were terminated. This litigation ensued.

The company's written rules of conduct for employees provided that any "unauthorized use or removal" of company property would be a ground for discharge. The company's employment agreements with appellants contained no limitations upon these or any other reasons for discharge, nor did they specify any particular duration of employment. Accordingly, as appellants have conceded, the company was authorized to terminate employment if, in fact, any rules of conduct were violated.

The appellants contend that no violation occurred because the immediate supervisor, to whom the third employee spoke on the telephone, authorized the use of the project manager's name on the requisition form. In a deposition, the immediate supervisor acknowledged having said that the project manager's name was required, but he denied giving any authority to sign the name. Appellants have not raised...