Timothy Walton v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 29 June 2000
• Docket Number: 00-LW-3042,76274
• Parties: TIMOTHY WALTON, Plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-appellee/ cross-appellant CASE
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

TIMOTHY WALTON Plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Defendant-appellee/ cross-appellant

No. 76274.

00-LW-3042 (8th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District Cuyahoga

June 29, 2000

Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 313,185.

For Plaintiff-appellant: ROBERT E. DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Robert E. Sweeney Co., L.P.A., 1500 Illuminating Building, 55 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44113.

For defendant-appellee: RICHARD C. HUBBARD III, MICHAEL T PEARSON, Attorneys at Law, Duvin, Cahn & Hutton, Erieview Tower - 20th Floor, 1301 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114.

OPINION

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.

In this action for wrongful discharge, plaintiff -appellant Timothy Walton appeals from the trial court order that granted defendant-appellee Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's ("RTA's") second motion for summary judgment on appellant's claim.

Appellant asserts he presented adequate evidence to establish his allegations both that appellee lacked justification to discharge him and that appellee failed to act in good faith in discharging him. Appellant also asserts he was not required to follow company procedures in contesting his discharge prior to pursuing this action.

Appellee has filed a cross appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of its first motion for summary judgment.

In its cross appeal, appellee argues the evidence presented to the trial court failed to establish appellant's claim that the parties had an implied contract of continued employment; therefore, summary judgment on appellant's claim was appropriate. This court finds merit in appellee's argument. Since it is dispositive of the other issues raised and makes an entry of judgment in appellee's favor appropriate, this court need not address appellant's assignments of error and consequently dismisses appellant's appeal.

Appellant applied for employment with appellee in 1983. Appellee is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio providing public transportation through Cuyahoga County and portions of adjoining counties. Appellee accepted appellant's application and assigned him to work as an "automotive engineer."^[1] Subsequently, appellee promoted appellant to the position of "Project Manager." Then, in 1987, appellant became "Director of [the Department of] Technical Services."

Appellant's department was among the three RTA departments that were under the supervision of RTA's Assistant General Manager of Materials. In 1988, Maynard Z. Walters assumed that position, thus becoming appellant's supervisor.

Prior to the time of appellant's initial employment by appellee, appellee had adopted a set of bylaws for its own governance. Article VIII, Sections 2 and 3, of appellee's By Laws provided in pertinent part as follows:

Sec. 2. Employment Generally. The General Manager is hereby authorized to employ from time to time on a temporary basis craftsmen and clerical personnel as may be necessary to carry out the operations and programs of the Authority. The General Manager shall be governed by the Personnel Policies and Procedures as adopted by the Board in his or her dealings with permanent and/or full-time employees. * * *

Sec. 3. Positions of Permanent Employment. The Board shall establish positions of permanent employment from time to time for such management, professional and technical personnel as may be necessary to carry out the operations and program of the Authority. The General Manager is hereby authorized to employ and discharge with cause personnel for such positions and to prescribe their authority and duties. * * *

(Emphasis added.)

Appellee's personnel policies at the time of appellant's hire were included in a pamphlet entitled "Merit System Rules." The "foreword" to these rules stated in pertinent part as follows:

It is the purpose [of these rules] to provide a sound, comprehensive, and uniform system of personnel administration for the system, whereby,effectiveness and economy in the personal services rendered and fairness to the employees and the public alike may be promoted, and employment in the authority may be made attractive as a career to persons qualified to serve therein.

These rules shall continue in effective (sic) from July 1, 1952 until amended or rescinded by the Transit Board by resolution. (Emphasis added.)

Rule 14 listed nineteen "grounds for discharge or suspension" of employees, including insubordination, "conduct unbecoming an employee either on or off duty," willful or repeated violations of any of the personnel rules, and "other failures of good behavior detrimental to" RTA's operations. Section 3 of this rule authorized the "appointing Authority * * * to suspend or discharge an employee for any of the reasons set forth in Rule 14."

Rule 15 detailed the procedure for appeal of "personnel decisions for managerial employees." Managerial employees first were required to "appeal decisions by stating * * * objections in writing to * * * the General Manager." The rule further stated that any decision not so appealed within ten working days "shall be final."

In 1992, appellee adopted both a new "Personnel Policies and Procedures" manual and an "Employee Performance Code and Work Rules." Appellant received copies of these documents.

Section 1 of the new employee manual contained the following "Disclaimer":

* * * In the event of any conflict between the GCRTA bylaws and the policies set forth in the Manual, the bylaws shall prevail and for any conflict between the Manual and any applicable laws the law will prevail.

* * *

The policies and procedures in this Manual are not intended to be and shall not be considered contractual commitment of any kind by the Authority. They are intended to be guidelines to managers and merely descriptive of suggested procedures to be followed. The Authority reserves the right to revoke, change, or supplement policies at any time. No policy is intended as a guarantee of continuity of benefits or rights. Permanent placement or employment is not intended nor is it implied by any statement in this Manual.

Section 2.8 stated:

In order to promote fair and impartial treatment of all employees, the Authority has defined rules of conduct.

It is important that work rules be clearly understood as well as the penalties for certain types of unacceptable behavior. Discipline is never intended to be punitive. It is instead intended to help employees correct unacceptable behavior and to ensure that the Authority is staffed with competent, conscientious and concerned personnel.

The Employee Performance Code and Work Rules book provides specific information on the rules of conduct and progressive disciplinary action which may result from violations of the Code.

(Emphasis added.)

Section 6.2 established a "complaint procedure," reassuring employees that they were:

* * * encouraged to discuss freely and fully with their immediate supervisor any questions concerning their duties, responsibilities, and working conditions. * * *

The Authority recognizes, however, that not all problems can be satisfactory (sic) handled in this manner and therefore has established a complaint procedure which assures the employee of careful, impartial, and prompt consideration of any problem or complaint. Individuals who have a work-related complaint are encouraged to avail themselves of this procedure. Another employee of the Authority may assist the complainant if desirable (sic).

That section further indicated that persons in appellant's position "will use the following complaint procedure," but "Step 1" stated "[e]mployees may present concerns in writing to their supervisor within 5 working days of the event which is the source of their complaint." (Emphasis added.) No procedural alternative was set forth should the employee decline to follow the first step.

Appellee introduced its new "Employee Performance Code and Work Rules" with the following statements:

This manual presents the Performance Code and Work Rules applicable to all employees of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. The Authority wants to assist you, its representative, in doing the best possible job of- rendering safe, efficient and dependable service to our customers. The Performance Code serves as a guide to the proper performance of your duties.

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority was created for one purpose: to serve the transportation needs of the public. To the public, you are the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Your appearance, behavior and treatment of our customers - both the riding public and your co-workers reflects the public's opinion of the Authority.

Standard rule of conduct are necessary for the effective and safe carrying out of any endeavor.

When you accept a position with the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, you assume specific responsibilities. Your acceptance of a job with the Authority is your commitment to willingly comply with the Authority's rules and regulations.

You are expected to carry out all work assignments and instructions of supervisory personnel, and to conduct yourself and perform your duties in a competent, proficient, professional and ethical manner.

These rules and regulations are subject to revision. Any such revision will be indicated by posted bulletins and will be effective on the date specified. Additional rules and regulations for specific departments will be outlined under the Departmental heading.

The following rules have been adopted after careful consideration of the requirements for our operation. You are responsible for the safety and welfare of the general public. Knowledge of the Authority policies, rules and your duties will facilitate achievement of these

...