Title: Leahy v. Starflo Corp.
Citation: 431 S.E.2d 567
Docket Number: 23857
State: south-carolina
Issuer: south-carolina Supreme Court
Date: May 10, 1993

431 S.E.2d 567 (1993) Timothy A. LEAHY, Respondent, v. The STARFLO CORPORATION, Appellant. No. 23857. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard April 6, 1993. Decided May 10, 1993. John B. McLeod, of Haynsworth, Marion, McKay &amp; Guerard, Greenville, for appellant. Thomas B. Bryant, III and Mary Helen Dantzler, both of Bryant, Fanning &amp; Shuler, Orangeburg, for respondent. CHANDLER, Justice: Starflo Corporation (Employer) appeals the Master's Order holding it liable for the wrongful discharge of Respondent, Timothy Leahy (Leahy). We affirm. Leahy worked for Employer from March, 1981, until February 3, 1989, at which time he was fired without prior warning or notice. At the time of his discharge, he was Manager of Manufacturing Services. Leahy sued for wrongful discharge, alleging violation by Employer of its Policy Manual Procedure # 120-01; the Policy Manual required that, prior to an Employee's discharge, four steps of progressive discipline be followed.[1] Employer answered, alleging (1) that the Policy Manual did not create a contract of employment and (2) that, it had disclaimed any contractual relationship with its employees. The matter was referred to the Master, with finality, who held that (1) Policy Manual Procedure # 120-01 contractually bound Employer and (2) that Employer's disclaimer was ambiguous and did not circumvent the required four-step disciplinary procedure. Our scope of review governing this action is set forth in Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville:[2] Employer contends that its Policy Manual, intended as a guidance tool for managers, did not alter Leahy's at-will employment status. We disagree. In Small v. Springs Industries, 292 S.C. 481, 357 S.E.2d 452 (1987), we held that an employer may alter traditional employment by issuance of handbooks, policies, manuals or bulletins, stating: 292 S.C. at 485, 357 S.E.2d at 454. Here, Employer posted the four-step disciplinary procedure on its bulletin board at one-week intervals. Employer's Personnel Manager conceded that the Company was "making a commitment [they were] not going to fire [employees] without going through those steps...." Moreover, he further testified that Employer made no distinction between hourly and managerial employees. Under Small, we find sufficient evidence that, by issuance of Policy Manual Procedure 120-01, Employer was contractually obligated to follow its four-step disciplinary procedure. Employer next alleges that, even if Policy Procedure No. 120-01 altered Leahy's at-will employment status, it had disclaimed any contractual obligation. We disagree. In Small, we held: 292 S.C. at 485, 357 S.E.2d at 455. Here, Leahy claims that the disclaimer, even if valid, was effectually waived. We agree. The disclaimer, printed at the front of the Policy Manual, reads: Notwithstanding the foregoing alleged disclaimer, the following letter was circulated to Employer's supervisors: (Emphasis supplied). Moreover, Employer's Personnel Manager explained the letter as follows: We agree with the Master that the Employer's letter was ambiguous and susceptible of the inference that Employer intended to waive the disclaimer. See Marr v. City of Columbia, ___ S.C. ___, 416 S.E.2d 615 (1992). Accordingly, the Order of the Master is AFFIRMED. HARWELL, C.J., and FINNEY, TOAL and MOORE, JJ., concur. [1] Policy # 130-01 required (1) an oral warning, (2) a written warning, (3) suspension and, finally, (4) termination. [2] 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976).