Opinion ID: 550338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Policy Manual Terms

Text: 17 To characterize his employment with Burger King as a situation 'instinct with an obligation,'  see Certified Question, 432 Mich. at 454, 443 N.W.2d 112, Elsey cites the policy manual provision stating that [j]ob security is an important benefit which a company can provide its employees, and the building of this security is a major concern of the Company. This statement, however, is immediately followed by the qualifying comment that each individual must earn this security by his contribution, in whatever degree and manner his opportunities provide, to the success of the Company. Thus, any suggestion of job security in the initial sentence of the policy is clearly offset by the subsequent caveat that employees must earn whatever job security they may obtain. More importantly, the policy manual contains an explicit declaration of at-will employment: employees and employer have the right to terminate employment at any time for any circumstance, and for any reasons that are attributed by the employer or employee. In light of the foregoing language, we find that this is not a case involving conflicting policy manual statements of at-will status and just cause limitations. Because the policy manual at issue unequivocally established that the plaintiff's employment was at-will, the plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment by relying upon the holding of Dalton v. Herbruck Egg Sales Corp., 164 Mich.App. 543, 547, 417 N.W.2d 496 (1987), that conflicting policy manual statements require jury consideration. 2 See Vollrath v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 899 F.2d 533, 535-36 (6th Cir.1990) (similarly distinguishing Dalton ), petition for cert. filed, 59 U.S.L.W. 3168 (U.S. Aug. 27, 1990) (No. 90-369). 18 The plaintiff's policy manual claim is further undermined by his concession that he was unaware of the Burger King policy manual until after his discharge. The rationale for policy manual claims is that employers who promulgate policies favorable to their employees secure[ ] an orderly, cooperative and loyal work force, see Toussaint, 408 Mich. at 613, 292 N.W.2d 880, and therefore should not be permitted to reap the benefits of improved employee morale without shouldering the burden of abiding by the policy manual terms that engender the improved morale. Shivers, 719 F.Supp. at 602. Here, Elsey cannot argue that Burger King furnished him with a policy manual in order to enhance his productivity by providing him with a false sense of security. Accordingly, the district court was correct in holding that Burger King should not be liable for a claim based upon a policy manual that had no impact whatsoever on the plaintiff's commitment to his job.