Opinion ID: 1856495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Corrective Action

Text: Good working relationships require everyone to meet their responsibilities to the Bank, themselves, and the people with whom they work. At all times staff members are expected to meet the Bank's standards for work performance and business conduct, and to follow the policies and procedures covered in Working Together. This is where the corrective action process comes into play. Through it, staff members are given a chance to improve when their performance doesn't meet Bank standards. However, in appropriate instances, failure to meet the Bank's standards can result in release without notice or severance pay.       The corrective action procedure is a guide to help supervisors deal with performance or disciplinary problems. Working within the framework of this procedure, the supervisor applies his or her own judgment as to how a problem can best be handled. Depending on the situation, and the staff member's degree of improvement, the supervisor may repeat, bypass, or shorten the time span between any of the steps listed below. (emphasis added). It is apparent from the language emphasized above that Citibank has expressed no clear indication, of the sort contemplated in Osterkamp, supra, of an intention to surrender its statutory power to terminate employees at will (SDCL 60-4-4). Although the handbook does contain several specific grounds for employee discipline, the provisions above caution that employees are expected to meet standards for performance and conduct in addition to, the policies and procedures covered in Working Together. Further, the above provisions indicate that Corrective Action is not a mandatory process but merely a guide to help supervisors deal with disciplinary problems. Within this guide supervisors are free to exercise their own judgment as to how to handle a specific problem. Particularly pertinent is the fact that in handling a personnel problem a supervisor is free to bypass any of the steps in the Corrective Action process. Thus, it is clear that Corrective Action is not a mandatory procedure which must be followed prior to any employee's termination. Our conclusion that Citibank's employee handbook does not contain a for cause only termination agreement is not altered by the fact that the parties have agreed that the handbook constitutes the contract of employment between Butterfield and Citibank. As the Supreme Court of Michigan has stated: Employers are most assuredly free to enter into employment contracts terminable at will without assigning cause. We hold only that an employer's express agreement to terminate only for cause, or statements of company policy and procedure to that effect, can give rise to rights enforceable in contract. Toussaint v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Mich., 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880, 890 (1980). Thus, a for cause only termination agreement will constitute a binding and enforceable contract ( Osterkamp, supra ) but an employment contract need not always contain a for cause only termination agreement. ( Toussaint, supra ). Having resolved Butterfield's contentions concerning ambiguity, no genuine issue of material fact remains in this case. Butterfield was an employee terminable at Citibank's will. It was not necessary for Citibank to follow the Corrective Action process prior to Butterfield's termination. Accordingly, summary judgment for Citibank on Butterfield's claim for breach of express or implied contract was appropriate as a matter of law. Blote v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n., 422 N.W.2d 834 (S.D.1988); Bauer v. American Freight System, Inc., 422 N.W.2d 435 (S.D. 1988). As to Butterfield's claims for wrongful discharge based upon various tort theories, we find that they have no validity as Butterfield was an employee terminable at will. Blote, supra . Therefore, summary judgment for Citibank on these claims was also appropriate. Id. Finally, with regard to Butterfield's claim for breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing in commercial transactions, we observe that this court has specifically rejected this cause of action in the employment at will context. Breen v. Dakota Gear and Joint Co., Inc., 433 N.W.2d 221 (S.D.1988). Therefore, summary judgment for Citibank on this claim was again appropriate as a matter of law. Id. Summary judgment for Citibank is affirmed. WUEST, C.J., and MILLER, J., concur. SABERS, J., dissents. HENDERSON, J., disqualified.