Tersigni v. Gen. Tire, Inc.
Decision Date | 20 October 1993 |
Docket Number | 16003,16092 and 16131,Nos. 15904,s. 15904 |
Citation | 91 Ohio App.3d 757,633 N.E.2d 1140 |
Parties | , 10 IER Cases 379 TERSIGNI et al., Appellants, v. GENERAL TIRE, INC., Appellee. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Andrew L. Margolius and Gloria Rowland Homolak, Cleveland, for appellants.
Edward C. Kaminski, James D. Kurek and Vincent J. Tersigni, Akron, for appellee.
The appellants, Anita Tersigni, Mary Coleman, Thomas Brown, Joseph DiSantis, and Janet Johnson, appeal from the order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to the appellee, General Tire, Inc. ("General Tire").
In 1979, General Tire first devised a procedure for eliminating jobs whereby more senior employees would displace or "bump" less senior employees in the same or similar position. The policy was first put into writing in 1980 and distributed to management personnel. In the early 1980s, General Tire decreased its number of employees from approximately four thousand to about nine hundred. The bumping policy was used throughout this period of massive layoffs.
In 1987, the bumping policy was altered slightly to cover only those employees below a certain salary level. In April 1991, the bumping policy was eliminated. General Tire then laid off approximately one hundred employees. The appellants herein, five of those employees, filed complaints against General Tire alleging promissory estoppel and breach of implied contract because General Tire failed to apply the bumping policy to them.
The appellants alleged that they knew about the widespread application of the bumping policy through communication with supervisors and other employees. They also saw the policy in action throughout the 1980s. On the strength of their seniority and the relative security of the bumping system, the appellants continued working at General Tire and did not seek other employment during the reductions in force.
General Tire filed motions for summary judgment against the appellants, which the trial court granted. The five appellants, in four cases consolidated for appeal, now appeal asserting a single assignment of error.
Under Civ.R. 56(C), a trial court may grant a motion for summary judgment only when (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. " " Norris v. Ohio Std. Oil Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 1, 2, 24 O.O.3d 1, 2, 433 N.E.2d 615, 616, quoting Vetovitz Bros., Inc. v. Kenny Constr. Co. (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 331, 332, 14 O.O.3d 292, 293, 397 N.E.2d 412, 414. This court will reverse a summary judgment whenever it finds that reasonable minds could come to differing conclusions based on the evidence before the trial court.
Under Ohio law, an employee who is hired for an indefinite period of time is an employee at will and may be terminated at any time for any reason not contrary to law. Henkel v. Educational Research Council (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 249, 74 O.O.2d 415, 344 N.E.2d 118, syllabus. However, in Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100, 19 OBR 261, 483 N.E.2d 150, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized two exceptions to the general rule of employment at will: implied contract and promissory estoppel. Having allowed for the possibility of modifying the at-will relationship, a court in considering summary judgment now must look for evidence supporting each theory.
The Mers court recognized that the cumulative effect of various events may transform an employment-at-will agreement into an implied contract. Mers, supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. The Mers court stated:
"The facts and circumstances surrounding an oral employment-at-will agreement, including the character of the employment, custom, the course of dealing between the parties, company policy, or any other fact which may illuminate the question, can be considered by the trier of fact in order to determine the agreement's explicit and implicit terms concerning discharge."
To prove that they had an enforceable contract with the employer, the employees must establish an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Contrary to the appellee's argument, they need not rebut a lack of mutual assent defense. "As a contract defense, the mutuality doctrine has become a faltering rampart to which a litigant retreats at his own peril." Helle v. Landmark, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio App.3d 1, 12, 15 OBR 22, 33, 472 N.E.2d 765, 776.
In Mers, the employee manual and oral assurances to the employee were enough to present a jury question on the existence of an offer to make a contract. While in Mers the employee actually had read the manual, in Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 134, 545 N.E.2d 1244, the employee had not. In that case, the court held that oral assurances of job security based on a written policy along with the history of relations between the parties were enough to constitute an offer to make a unilateral employment contract. Id. at 139-140, 545 N.E.2d at 1249-1250.
" " Helle, 15 Ohio App.3d at 10-11, 15 OBR at 32, 472 N.E.2d at 775-776, fn. 10, quoting DeGiuseppe, The Effect of the Employment-at-Will Rule on Employee Rights to Job Security and Fringe Benefits (1981), 10 Fordham Urban L.J. 1, 51-52.
In this case, the employees alleged, supported by their Civ.R. 56 evidence, that the bumping policy was:
1. identified in writing and in detail;
2. clear in its procedures, available to employees, and relied on by employees;
3. widely and uniformly followed for a period in excess of one decade with management expecting employees to be aware of, and rely on procedures;
4. enforceable and followed without any exercise of discretion by supervisors;
5. discussed and/or intended by management to be communicated between supervisors and the employees; and
6. observed by the plaintiffs as applied to similarly situated employees.
Although the plaintiffs did not receive a written copy of the bumping policy, there was sufficient evidence of the policy's existence and application to present a question of fact as to whether it constituted an offer to alter the employment-at-will relationship between the parties.
The disclaimer that General Tire added to its employee manual, more than eleven years after the bumping policy was put into effect, is not enough to take this issue from the jury.
"[T]o the extent that the oral assurances * * * conflicted with the manual's disclaimers, or induced appellants to disregard their significance * * * such representations will negate the effect of disclaimers which are intended to absolve the employer from liability for unilateral alterations of or deviations from policies presented in the written manual or similar employer writings." Helle, 15 Ohio App.3d at 10, 15 OBR at 31, 472 N.E.2d at 775.
Factual questions arise if the meaning of a disclaimer is ambiguous. Pond v. Devon Hotels, Ltd. (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 268, 272, 563 N.E.2d 738, 742-743.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Desanzo v. Titanium Metals Corp., No. C2-03-524.
... ... Page 776 ... party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ... question of reasonableness is by nature an issue for the jury." Tersigni v. General Tire. Inc., 91 Ohio App.3d 757, 762, 633 N.E.2d 1140, ... ...
-
Expeditors Intern. of Wash. v. Crowley Amer. Tran.
...Thatcher v. Goodwill Industries of Akron, 117 Ohio App.3d 525, 540, 690 N.E.2d 1320 (1997). See also Tersigni v. General Tire, Inc., 91 Ohio App.3d 757, 762, 633 N.E.2d 1140 (1993). If these requirements are met, and "injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise," then an agr......
-
Herbst v. System One Information Management, LLC, 1:96CV2094.
... ... Tee-Pak, Inc. v. St. Regis Paper Co., 491 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore's Federal ... Tersigni v. General Tire, Inc., 633 N.E.2d 1140, 91 Ohio App.3d 757, 760 (Summit ... ...
-
Fox v. the Brown Mem'l Home Inc.
...implied employment contract, when the promisee had been an at-will employee.” (emphasis added) (citing Tersigni v. General Tire, Inc., 91 Ohio App.3d 757, 633 N.E.2d 1140, 1142–43 (1993); Nichols v. Waterfield Fin. Corp., 62 Ohio App.3d 717, 577 N.E.2d 422, 423 (1989); Canter v. Tucker, 110......