Sinnett v. Hie Food Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 37396,37396 |
| Citation | 185 Neb. 221,174 N.W.2d 720 |
| Parties | John W. SINNETT, Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. HIE FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., a Corporation, Appellant, Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In reviewing equity cases, where there is an irreconcilable conflict on a material issue, this court will, in determining the weight of the evidence, consider the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses and their manner of testifying and must have accepted one version of the facts rather than the other.
2. Where an agreement provides for a bonus for continuous service which is terminated by the employer through no fault of the employee the latter is entitled to a proportionate share of the bonus according to the time served. Where, however the employee voluntarily quits or is discharged for a reason attributable to his own fault, there is no right to recover any part of the bonus.
William H. Mecham, Omaha, Carl I. Klekers, Ralston, for appellant.
Charles Ledwith, Omaha, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, and NEWTON, JJ.
This is an action for the recovery of an employee's bonus and for wages alleged to be due. Trial was had to the court. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for the bonus claimed in his first cause of action and for defendant on the claim for wages in the second cause of action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are alleged in plaintiff's petition. Defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of food products. It employed plaintiff under an oral contract providing for an $80 weekly wage and for a bonus of $20 per week in stock of the defendant company. The written stock bonus agreement contained the following provision: Plaintiff commenced work on October 1, 1967, and was discharged on September 30, 1968. The stock bonus was denied to plaintiff.
In his second cause of action, plaintiff alleges he was underpaid $61.70 during the first 5 weeks he was employed.
The answer contains a general denial and states plaintiff's employment was terminated for good cause prior to the lapse of 1 full year. Defendant also maintains the stock bonus agreement had been mutually rescinded.
The evidence regarding the terms of plaintiff's employment, the execution of the stock agreement, and the period of employment is not disputed and is as alleged. It is also conceded that after plaintiff had been employed in the plant for about 2 months, he was transferred to a route and made sales and deliveries of defendant's products. At this time he went on a commission basis, with a guaranteed weekly wage in an increased amount.
The fact that plaintiff was discharged is admitted in defendant's answer and the testimony of its executive officer. There is a serious conflict in the testimony of the parties on the question of whether or not defendant had good cause for plaintiff's dismissal. Defendant charges irregularities in plaintiff's report of sales and in gasoline purchases. This plaintiff denies.
Regarding the theory that the stock agreement was rescinded at the time plaintiff went on a route on a commission basis, there is no evidence of any discussion regarding rescission. It is conceded that defendant's second route man received the stock bonus.
There is some indication in the record that plaintiff may have been underpaid $61.70 during the first weeks he was employed, but the record does not disclose that he ever made any complaint or demand for additional wages until this action was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maddaloni v. Western Mass. Bus Lines, Inc.
...to examples of contracts including bonuses (Coleman v. Graybar Elec. Co., 195 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1952); Sinnett v. Hie Food Prods., Inc., 185 Neb. 221, 222-224, 174 N.W.2d 720 (1970) 10), and stock options (Lemmon v. Cedar Point, Inc., 406 F.2d 94, 96-97 (6th Cir. 1969); Zimmer v. Wells Mgm......
-
State, ex rel. Roberts v. Public Finance Co.
...446 F.2d 610 (6th Cir.1971); American Security Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 37 Ala.App. 552, 72 So.2d 132 (1954); Sinnett v. Hie Food Products, Inc., 185 Neb. 221, 174 N.W.2d 720 (1970). Some cases holding in this fashion can be distinguished because: (1) there was no express language in the con......
-
Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.
...v. Graybar Elec. Co., 195 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1952); Zimmer v. Wells Management Corp., 348 F.Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Sinnett v. Hie Food Prods., Inc., 185 Neb. 221, 174 N.M.2d 720 (1970). In our view, the Appeals erroneously focused only on literal compliance with payment provisions of the......
-
Shaver v. FW Woolworth Co.
...408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980); Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622 (Minn.1983); Sinnett v. Hie Food Products, Inc., 185 Neb. 221, 174 N.W.2d 720 (1970); Southwest Gas Corp. v. Ahmad, 99 Nev. 594, 668 P.2d 261 (1983); Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 443 N.E.2......