Opinion ID: 1759354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Alleged Breaches on June 19, 1997

Text: The letter confirming the termination stated that the termination was due to Phipps' gross misconduct and safety violations. Rickertsen testified that gross misconduct referred to Phipps' conduct during the June 19, 1997, unloading. Skyview claims Phipps breached the agreement by being impatient and getting angry upon being told he could not immediately unload at the Maryland jobsite, claiming this conduct breached paragraph VII of the handbook. Paragraph VII of the handbook provides, SKYVIEW LEASING expects drivers, to be very polite at all times, courteous to others on and off the road, and not to complain to any one except Skyview people. (Emphasis in original.) Evidence adduced by Skyview of Phipps' impatience consists of the telephone calls Phipps made to Rickertsen in which Phipps was upset about not being able to unload. Skyview did not produce evidence that Phipps expressed impatience or discourteousness to anyone other than Rickertsen, the owner of Skyview. Under the terms of the handbook, Phipps was complaining to the appropriate person. The trial court was not clearly erroneous in determining that Phipps' conduct did not constitute a breach of the agreement. Skyview also claims Phipps breached the agreement by failing to make a check call at least 6 hours prior to arriving at the Maryland jobsite. Although the agreement requires making such calls, the trial court was not clearly erroneous in determining that failing to make one such call was not a material breach of the agreement. Skyview next claims Phipps breached the agreement by arriving earlier than scheduled at the Maryland jobsite. The terms of the agreement provide for on time delivery. Skyview claims the load was scheduled for a 2 p.m. delivery. However, Phipps claimed he was never advised of this unloading time. Upon his call to Rickertsen, Phipps was informed that this was a demurrage load and that he would be paid for any time he spent waiting. Resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of Phipps, who is entitled to every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence, we cannot say the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that Phipps did not breach the agreement by arriving at the jobsite at 7:30 a.m. Regarding safety violations, Skyview claims Phipps was attempting to unload his truck in an unauthorized manner by his actions regarding the conveyor system. Skyview bases this position upon an unwritten law in the trucking business that truckers are not supposed to touch equipment belonging to others. However, no provisions of the agreement prohibit the trucker from such activity. Instead, the agreement provides that the trucker is to properly load, unload, and clean out all trailers, and furnish drivers and all other necessary labor for the loading and unloading of commodities. In the several pages of the handbook covering loading and unloading procedures, there are no provisions which provide for unloading the truck in a specific manner or which state that the trucker is not to assist in the unloading of the truck. Skyview next claims that Phipps endangered a Chemrock employee while attempting to restart the conveyor system. However, there is no evidence of this in the record. Although OHSA and the Maryland State Patrol contacted Rickertsen regarding the accident, no action was taken against Skyview and no evidence was produced to show that Phipps was violating any terms of the agreement by attempting to restart the conveyor belt. The trial court's finding that Skyview failed to show that Phipps breached the agreement by his actions on June 19, 1997, was not clearly erroneous.