Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks

• Decision Date: 13 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-262,84-262
• Citation: 704 P.2d 702
• Parties: 103 Lab.Cas. P 55,520, 1 IER Cases 1341 MOBIL COAL PRODUCING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellant (Defendant), v. Dale PARKS, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 702

704 P.2d 702

103 Lab.Cas. P 55,520, 1 IER Cases 1341

MOBIL COAL PRODUCING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellant (Defendant), v. Dale PARKS, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 84-262.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Aug. 13, 1985.

Thomas D. Roberts of Morgan, Brorby, Price & Roberts, Gillette, and Maryann Walsh, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Dwight F. Hurich of Preuit, Sowada & Hurich, Gillette, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

ROONEY, Justice.

This is an appeal by appellant-employer from a judgment of the district court awarding appellee-employee damages for wrongful discharge from employment. Four of the issues on appeal pertain to findings based on appellee's status as an "at will" employee. Appellant words the other two issues on appeal:

"If defendant's [appellant's] employee handbook is an employment contract, whether defendant [appellant] substantially complied with the contract in terminating plaintiff [appellee] for good cause based on plaintiff's [appellee's] safety violations."

"Whether plaintiff [appellee] by law or the terms of the defendant's [appellant's] employee handbook was entitled to a hearing prior to termination."

The provisions of appellant's employee handbook make appellee's employment to be other than "at will," and inasmuch as such provisions were not substantially complied with in termination of appellee's employment, we affirm.

AT WILL EMPLOYMENT

The district court found appellee's employment by appellant to be "at will." It then inconsistently found the handbook to contain controlling provisions with reference to discharge procedure and hearings and with reference to creating an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Wyoming follows the common-law rule that either party may terminate an employment at will contract (one without a definite term) at any time for any reason or without reason, and that such is not violative of any implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Siebken v. Town of Wheatland, Wyo., 700 P.2d 1236 (1985); Allen v. Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Wyo., 699 P.2d 277 (1985); Rompf v. John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc., Wyo., 685 P.2d 25 (1984); Carlson v. Bratton, Wyo., 681 P.2d 1333 (1984); Lukens v. Goit, Wyo., 430 P.2d 607 (1967); Long v. Forbes, 58 Wyo. 533, 136 P.2d 242, 158 A.L.R. 224 (1943); Casper Nat. Bank v. Curry, 51 Wyo. 284, 65 P.2d 1116, 110 A.L.R. 360 (1937).

Without more, appellee was an "at will" employee, subject to discharge at any time without cause. He was employed on March 15, 1982, by appellant as a mine technician, the title given to members of an hourly work force handling mining operations, maintenance and plant functions at a surface coal mine in Campbell County. His employment was not for a definite term. He was discharged on August 26, 1983, primarily for violations of safety requirements.

HANDBOOK

However, in September 1982, six months after appellee was employed, appellant distributed a handbook to mine employees. It contained information under six sections, with each section containing subsections in number from five to nineteen.

In Carlson v. Bratton, supra, we said at page 1339:

"Absent a discrimination amounting to a violation of civil rights, a person does not have tenure in employment unless such tenure is established by statute or by contract or by rules and regulations pursuant to statute or by rules and regulations having the force of a contract. * * * " (Emphasis added.) ¹

The question here, then, is whether or not appellant's handbook set forth rules and regulations having the force of a contract, and, if so, did appellee violate the terms thereof. In this case the trial was to the court, and the court resolved both questions of law and questions of fact. Three-fourth's of the court's oral opinion from the bench (other than comments on damages) was concerned with the contents of the handbook. Although the court concluded that appellee was working under an "at will" contract, it found that appellee's discharge was improper inasmuch as appellant did not comply with the handbook's procedural requirements, and, in effect, it found appellant to be contractually bound by the provisions of the handbook. The court premised its general finding "for the plaintiff and against the defendant" on failure to comply with the handbook's requirements. A general finding and judgment carries with it every finding of fact which can reasonably and fairly be drawn from the evidence. Burk v. Burzynski, Wyo., 672 P.2d 419, 425 (1983). There was substantial evidence to support the finding that the handbook's provisions were applicable and were not followed by appellant. In determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings or judgment of the trial court, we assume the evidence in favor of the successful party to be true, give to it every favorable inference which may reasonably and fairly be drawn from it, and leave out of consideration the evidence of the unsuccessful party in conflict therewith. Pine Creek Canal No. 1 v. Stadler, Wyo., 685 P.2d 13, 17 (1984); Anderson v. Bauer, Wyo., 681 P.2d 1316, 1319 (1984).

The handbook did more than set forth the hours of work, pay scale, pension rights, promotion policy, etc. It addressed the very basis of an at will employment, i.e., the right of the employer to discharge the employee at any time, with or without cause. The handbook recites in part:

"The following rules of unacceptable conduct apply to all employees. Any employee who violates these rules subjects himself/herself to degrees of disciplinary action, up to and including termination. We will apply these rules in a fair and equitable manner.

"Some of the actions that will not be condoned at the Caballo Rojo Mine are as follows:

"excessive absenteeism or tardiness

"fighting

"theft

"gambling on company property

"falsification of records

"bringing intoxicating liquor or narcotic on company property

"coming to work in an unfit physical condition or under the influence of liquor or drugs

"drinking or using narcotics on company property, which includes the parking lot

"smoking in areas designated as non-smoking areas

"violation of safety rules

"bringing firearms or any type of explosive on mine site

"bringing televisions, electronic devices, or cameras onto the property

"using threatening or abusive language toward fellow employees or supervisors

"willfully damaging plant or personal property

"refusing or willfully failing to carry out proper instructions

"sleeping during working hours

"violating area work rules

"leaving the job without permission

"being convicted of felony criminal offense

"soliciting for any purpose during working time

"three (3) days unreported absence (considered a 'quit without notice')

"The above general rules cannot possibly cover all situations that arise. Thus, all employees are expected to meet a reasonable standard of conduct and work performance.

"Employees having job-related problems will receive fair and objective consideration--without fear of reprisal. This includes problems concerning salary, supervision, discipline, application of company policy, and any other working conditions.

"You are encouraged to talk on an informal basis to your immediate supervisor first about any job-related problem. However, should you find this procedure unacceptable, you should follow the steps in Caballo Rojo's Fair Treatment Policy described in this handbook.

"Our Employee Relations Program at Caballo Rojo is based on each employee accepting certain responsibilities. Our work is of a technical nature and very exacting, placing upon each employee the responsibility for a high degree of self-discipline. Thus, the primary source of discipline at the Caballo Rojo Mine is Self-Discipline.

"Caballo Rojo adheres to a policy of progressive discipline tempered by the seriousness of the offense. Any employee may be subject to disciplinary action for reasons including, but not limited to, unsatisfactory work performance (e.g. carelessness in handling materials, unattention to duty) or breach of conduct (e.g., overstaying rest or lunch period, excessive absenteeism, disregard of safety, failure to carry out the supervisor's instructions). Each case will be reviewed on its individual merits, as well as to achieve overall consistency throughout the mine.

"The nature of discipline will depend upon the nature of the offense and/or the employee's cumulative record. Disciplinary suspension subject to termination will be imposed when the seriousness of an individual offense or the employee's record of prior rule infractions warrants such action.

"The normal procedure for progressive discipline is as follows:

"Step 1--Counseling

"The Supervisor will make the employee aware of the deficiency and documents the conversation with employee, sending a copy to Employee Relations.

"Step 2--Counseling

"Should another incident arise, the supervisor will make the employee aware of the deficiency as well as pointing out to the employee that this is the second counseling session. This conversation is also documented and a copy forwarded to Employee Relations.

"Step 3--Written Reprimand

"In the case of further incidents, the employee will receive a written reprimand.

"Step 4--Three-Day Suspension

"The employee who has another incident of poor workmanship or violation of Company rules and regulations, will subject himself/herself to a three-day suspension.

"Step 5--Discharge

"If another incident occurs, the specified rule violation along with the employee's prior record will be reviewed by the Mine Manager, and the employee's services may be terminated." (Emphasis in original.)

Not only does the tenor of the foregoing reflect the necessity for the existence of cause for discharge, but it specifically requires such. The essential requirement of an at will employment is thus missing.

This is not to say that the existence of a handbook or employer's manual will make employment other than...