Simmons v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.

• Citation: 311 So.2d 28
• Decision Date: 01 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 12583,12583
• Parties: 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2740 Marion L. SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)

Page 28

311 So.2d 28

90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2740

Marion L. SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12583.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

April 1, 1975.

Jerry L. Finley, Monroe, for appellant.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, through Jesse D. McDonald & W. Craig Henry, Monroe, for appellees.

Before BOLIN, PRICE, and HALL, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court sustaining a motion for summary judgment and rejecting the plaintiff's demands in a suit seeking reinstatement of employment, together with damages for unlawful discharge.

Marion L. Simmons brought this action against Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Jim Warren, alleging in his petition as a basis for recovery substantially as follows:

In July, 1969, Westinghouse purchased Poulan's Electrical Company in Monroe for which plaintiff had been employed since 1947. Westinghouse retained most of the twenty-seven employees of Poulan and represented their seniority rights would be continued and that no one would be discharged except for just cause. Should an employee be unable to perform a job classification of Westinghouse he would be given other suitable employment with the company. Jim Warren was sent to Monroe as manager of the plant and plaintiff accepted the job of foreman at a beginning salary of $850, which was increased periodically to $1,056.55 per month by December 8, 1971. On August 18, 1972, plaintiff was advised by Warren that he had orders to discharge him immediately for unsatisfactory performance as foreman.

Plaintiff alleges his termination was unlawful for the following reasons:

1. He had an agreement with Westinghouse that he would not be discharged except for good cause and if it was determined he was not suited for the position of plant foreman, he would be offered other suitable employment.

2. His termination was caused by the plant manager, Warren, reporting inaccurate information to higher company officials in regard to plaintiff's activities as foreman.

3. An underlying reason for his dismissal was the belief by Westinghouse officials that plaintiff was sympathetic with proponents of the effort to unionize the Monroe plant and his discharge for this reason is in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights.

In answer to plaintiff's allegations defendants allege plaintiff's employment was for an indefinite period and deny any agreement was made to guarantee him employment with the company. Defendants further allege plaintiff's employment was terminated because of his failure to follow instructions and refusal to implement company work procedures in the shop.

Defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging there is no genuine issue of fact relating to the circumstances surrounding the discharge of plaintiff and that, as a matter of law, he has no basis for recovery because his employment was for an indefinite period, and under such an agreement an employer may discharge an employee at any time with or without just cause.

In support of the motion, defendants filed an affidavit of Warren setting forth his knowledge of the reasons for discharge and the testimony of plaintiff given in response to a discovery deposition.

The trial judge found the defendants to have sufficiently established their position, that no real factual dispute was at issue and that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed as a matter of law. We quote in part from the reasons for judgment his conclusions of evidentiary facts and the law applicable thereto:

'Reviewing of all evidentiary matter before the court reveals that there is no real dispute of evidentiary fact or any material issue. Plaintiff was employed by Poulan Electric Company as a shop worker in 1947 and was a working 'shop foreman' there when Westinghouse bought Poulan in 1969. He was later made foreman, without any duties to perform actual labor in the shop, and was given several increases in salary. He was discharged on August 18, 1972.

'He contends that at the time of the sale, Poulan assured most employees they would be retained by Westinghouse; that officials of Westinghouse then had meetings to explain company policies and benefits at which he and others were told they had 'job security'; that in other meetings and actions, including his promotion and salary increases, he was led to believe that he could work there as long as he desired unless he violated rules or performed unsatisfactorily; that he thus believed he had a permanent contract of employment terminable by him at will but by Westinghouse only for a 'good cause.' Alternatively, he contends he was discharged in violation of federal labor laws because he was considered friendly to union efforts to organize the shop.

'The contentions by plaintiff are nothing more than unilateral conclusions and assumptions. The actual occurrences and facts, which are clearly shown without evidentiary contradiction, reveal that there was simply an oral contract of employment for an indefinite term as defined by our law, and such a contract is terminable at will by either party with or without cause. Civil Code Article 2747; Pitcher v. United Oil and Gas Syndicate, 174 La. 66, 139 So. 760; United Credit Co. v. Croswell Co., 219 La. 993, 54 So.2d 425; Manning v. Shreveport Transit Co., (La.App.,) 130 So.2d 497; Baker v. Union Tank Car Co., (La.App.,) 140 So.2d 397.

'The contention concerning the labor violation is equally untenable. The undisputed facts reveal that pl...