Opinion ID: 2631891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Breach of ContractEmployee Handbook

Text: [¶ 41] The last remaining issue is whether summary judgment was properly granted against Rob McLean on his allegation that he was terminated in violation of terms in an employee handbook that applied to him. Mr. McLean's position is that the presumption of at-will employment is rebutted in his case because of the existence of an employee policy manual. Mr. McLean argues that the very existence of an employee policy manual creates an implied contract of employment and he can only be terminated within the terms contained in the manual. That he never saw the employee policy manual while employed is irrelevant, he contends, because Hyland is bound by the terms of its manual. Mr. McLean declares, [t]he important question is not whether the employee, Rob McLean, knew the contents of Hyland's rules or whether he even knew there were rules. What is important is whether the employer intended to have rules. [¶ 42] We disagree. An employer is free to have rules without the rules being applicable to every employee. The employment relationship is a relationship based in contract. The basic elements of a contract are offer, acceptance and consideration. Bouwens v. Centrilift, 974 P.2d 941, 946 (Wyo.1999). An employer is free to make individual offers of employment to each individual employee. That an employer may have an employee policy manual does not mean that the policy manual automatically extends to all employees. An employer is free to hire employees as either at-will employees or for-cause employees and is free to have both types of employees in the workforce. Thus, the question is not whether the employer intends to have rules, but rather whether the employer intends to extend an offer to be bound by certain rules to particular employees. [¶ 43] The specific question here, then, is whether Hyland intended to create an implied for-cause contract of employment with Mr. McLean. Implied employment contracts are created by a mutual agreement and intent to promise which is found in the acts or conduct of the party sought to be bound. Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 868 P.2d 211, 216 (Wyo.1994). The test is whether there has been an objective manifestation of assent to an employment contract containing a job security provision. Bear v. Volunteers of America, 964 P.2d 1245, 1250 (Wyo.1998). Assent must come from both parties. Bouwens, 974 P.2d at 946. [¶ 44] In the instant case, there is no objective manifestation of an offer from Hyland to Mr. McLean. There is no evidence of any action on behalf of Hyland that could be interpreted as an offer to Mr. McLean to be bound by the terms of an employee policy manual. Mr. McLean admits Hyland never gave him a copy or otherwise made employee policies available to him. There is no evidence that Hyland ever distributed to employees in general the book containing the policies that the McLeans allege were the official company policies. [¶ 45] Mr. McLean contends that Bear supports his argument. In Bear, a manual of employment was generally distributed to all new employees. In Bear, the employee claimed that she was not bound by a disclaimer found in the general employment manual because she did not receive the disclaimer with the employment manual given to her. This Court held in Bear that an employee will be held to all terms in an official, widely distributed employee manual, whether or not the particular employee is aware of all terms in the manual. Bear, 964 P.2d at 1251. Because the issue in Bear dealt with the terms of the contract already formed, Bear is inapposite to this case in which the critical issue is whether Hyland ever made an offer. [¶ 46] Directly on point is Boone v. Frontier Refining, Inc., 987 P.2d 681 (Wyo.1999). The employee, Boone, claimed that the existence of an employment manual created an implied contract for continued employment. Boone admitted that, although he knew of the existence of the manual, and had seen it on occasion, the employer never gave him a copy and he never read the manual. The employment manual, in fact, was distributed only to members of management and some supervisors. This Court applied a contract analysis to determine if the employer had made an offer to Boone to be bound by the terms of the employment manual. The Court stated that it looks at the external or objective manifestations of the parties' intentions as revealed by their actions. We determine whether a reasonable man in the position of the offeree would have believed that the other party intended to make an offer. Id. at 687 (citation omitted). This Court determined that a reasonable person in Boone's position would not have considered the undistributed employment manual to be an offer. Id. at 687-88. [¶ 47] Because there is no evidence in the record that Hyland acted in any manner that could be interpreted as offering Mr. McLean employment governed by the terms of an employee policy manual, summary judgment was properly granted on this issue. No reasonable person in Mr. McLean's position would have considered the undistributed employment manual to be an offer.