Rosby v. General Baptist State Convention of North Carolina Inc., 8810SC7
| Docket Nº | No. 8810SC7 |
| Citation | 370 S.E.2d 605, 91 N.C.App. 77 |
| Case Date | August 02, 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Page 605
v.
The GENERAL BAPTIST STATE CONVENTION OF NORTH CAROLINA INC.
and Dr. C.C. Craig, Defendants.
Page 606
Irving Joyner, N.C. Cent. University School of Law, Durham, for plaintiff-appellant.
James L. Lassiter, Winston-Salem, and Thigpen, Blue & Stephens by Ralph L. Stephens, Raleigh, for defendants-appellees.
JOHNSON, Judge.
Plaintiff, David K. Rosby, instituted this civil action on 19 February 1986 to recover for breach of a contract of employment against his former employer, the Baptist State Convention. In count two of his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant number two, Dr. C.C. Craig, Executive Secretary/Treasurer of the Baptist State Convention, intentionally induced the Convention to breach its alleged contract of employment with plaintiff.
By way of answer, defendants denied the existence of a valid contract of employment, but described their professional relationship with plaintiff as an arrangement under which plaintiff would remain employed as long as his work was satisfactory to the Secretary/Treasurer of the Convention. Insofar as plaintiff's allegation of tortious interference with contract, defendant, Dr. Craig, answered that he had justification for his actions, and had documented plaintiff's specific acts of misconduct which led to his discharge. In addition, defendant, Dr. Craig, in his individual [91 N.C.App. 78] answer to the complaint, asserted a counterclaim against plaintiff for defamation.
The pertinent facts of the case appear as follows: On 1 March 1984 plaintiff was hired as Secretary of the Layman's League by the defendant, Convention, and continued in this capacity until employment termination on 13 January 1986. The parties had not entered into a written contract of employment, nor did they specify a definite term during which plaintiff was to be employed. At the time when plaintiff was hired, members of the Personnel Committee of the defendant, Convention, informed him that his actions were to be guided by certain personnel policies which they presented to him. The named personnel policies were adopted by the General Board in January 1984, but were not adopted by the full Convention until May 1984, two months after plaintiff had been hired.
In December of 1984, plaintiff filed a written grievance with defendant, Dr. Craig, concerning work-related issues. The grievance procedure employed was in keeping
Page 607
with that set forth in the 1984 personnel policies manual. Pursuant to procedure, plaintiff's letter of grievance was referred to a special panel of members of the Layman's League who met and discussed the grievance.On 13 January 1986, plaintiff was informed by a letter from Dr. Craig that he was being relieved of all duties pending consideration of his employment situation by the Convention's Executive Committee. Plaintiff then requested a hearing to appeal this decision, and was notified by letter on 17 January 1986 that he was to attend a meeting of the Personnel Committee on 27 January 1986 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Plaintiff did not attend the meeting. Defendant, Dr. Craig, however, did attend, and reported his prior action in having relieved plaintiff of his duties. The Executive Committee, upon motion, ratified Dr. Craig's action and permanently relieved plaintiff of his employment duties.
At trial on the matter, the court determined that plaintiff commenced his employment without benefit of a specific term or duration of employment; that certain personnel policies were in effect at that time, but were not incorporated into any employment agreement; and that the actions of neither plaintiff nor defendant, Dr. Craig, had been committed with malice. The court [91 N.C.App. 79] then ordered that plaintiff recover nothing of the defendants and that defendant, Dr. Craig, recover nothing of the plaintiff on the counterclaim. From this order plaintiff appeals.
By this appeal plaintiff requests that we consider (1) whether the trial court erred by ruling that the Convention's personnel policies were not incorporated into his alleged oral contract of employment; (2) whether the Convention breached its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., 1:02 CV 918.
...Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc., 104 N.C.App. 652, 656-57, 412 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1991) (citing Rosby v. General Baptist State Convention, 91 N.C.App. 77, 81, 370 S.E.2d 605, 608 (1988) (holding that manual received at point of hire, which included conditions of employment, expected conduct of......
-
Harter v. Vernon, Civil No. 3:95CV75.
...held that such handbooks cannot become part of an employment contract in North Carolina. See Rosby v. General Baptist State Convention, 91 N.C.App. 77, 81, 370 S.E.2d 605, 608, disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 626, 374 S.E.2d 590 (1988); Buffaloe v. United Carolina Bank, 89 N.C.App. 693, 696, ......
-
Norman v. Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., 1:02CV918 (M.D.N.C. 3/24/2003), 1:02CV918.
...Salt v. Applied Analytical. Inc., 104 N.C. App. 652, 656-57, 412 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1991) (citing Rosby v. General Baptist State Convention. 91 N.C. App. 77, 81, 370 S.E.2d 605, 608 (1988) (holding that manual received at point of hire, which included conditions of employment, expected conduct ......
-
Brandis v. Lightmotive Fatman, Inc., 935SC523
...and it is well established that this type of employment contract is not terminable at will. Rosby v. General Baptist State Convention, 91 N.C.App. 77, 370 S.E.2d 605, disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 626, 374 S.E.2d 590 (1988); Harris v. Duke Power Co., 319 N.C. 627, 356 S.E.2d 357 (1987). Pla......