Court Opinion

ID: 9717935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:13:02.051426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:56.183584
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s statement that it is immaterial whether Bauer was terminated for excessive or habitual tardiness or some other *439reason. This court has held that where an employer’s handbook specifies that an employee will not be discharged without just cause and the handbook positively deutils a procedure for termination which provides for warning notices, any employer violation of these provisions will support an action for breach of an employment contract. Osterkamp v. Alkota Mfg., Inc., 332 N.W.2d 275 (S.D.1983).
Bauer asserts that the employee handbook contains a promise to terminate for excessive tardiness only after proper warning from a supervisor. Bauer received no warning. Therefore, on summary judgment he is entitled to the more favorable and more specific of conflicting provisions in the employee handbook.

Conflict in Handbook Provisions

Employer’s promise arises from two conflicting handbook provisions regarding the process for discharge based on tardiness. The “Punctuality” provision provides in relevant part, “... [Ejxcessive tardiness, ... after proper warning from your supervisor, can result in termination of your employment.” (emphasis added)
The “Code of Conduct” provisions, on the other hand, provide in relevant part, “Violation of the Company’s common sense rules of personal conduct which may result in disciplinary action or discharge include, but are not limited to, the following: ... (4) Failure to perform assigned or required work satisfactorily^] (5) Insubordination^] (6) Excessive absence; habitual tardiness....” (emphasis added) Sections (4), (5), and (6) are the only ones remotely related to this case. Id. Thus, the “Punctuality” provision in the handbook says that excessive tardiness can result in termination after proper warning, while the “Code of Conduct” provision preserves the employment-at-will concept by saying that tardiness is one of several nonexclusive violations that “may ” result in “disciplinary action or discharge.” (emphasis added) Chin v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 96 Misc.2d 1070, 410 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1978).
Before we can determine whether American Freight violated any of the handbook provisions, we must determine which of these conflicting provisions are to be given effect — the one which preserves the at-will concept or the one which specifically provides for a warning before an employee can be terminated for tardiness. “[C]ourts have held that whether provisions of a personnel manual should be considered part of an employment contract is a matter for the jury, without finding it necessary to articulate a doctrinal basis for so holding.” L. Larson & P. Borowsky, Unjust Dismissal § 8.02 (1987). However, the general rules of interpreting written contracts provide that if a contract must be interpreted from the writing itself and not from any disputed surrounding circumstances, the question is one of law for the court and not the jury. 3 Corbin, Contracts § 554 (1960); 4 Williston on Contracts § 616 (3d ed. 1961). In Hunt v. IBM Mid America Employees Federal Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853, 856 (Minn.1986), the court held that where the employee manual was the only basis for the wrongful discharge action, the nature and effect of the manual was a question of construction for the court. See also Johnston v. Panhandle Cooperative Ass’n, 225 Neb. 732, 408 N.W.2d 261 (1987) (In a declaratory judgment action, the question of whether a written salary agreement and a handbook supported the existence of a “for-cause” employment contract was a question of law for the court); Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. of the U.S., 389 N.W.2d 876 (Minn.1986) (Simo-nett, J., and Coyne, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part, and Kelley, J., dissenting).
In Bauer’s case the allegations of his complaint and the arguments in his briefs indicate that the sole basis for his cause of action was the handbook provisions. Cf. Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980) (Jury could conclude that employee would not be discharged without good cause, based on oral assurances of job security which were reinforced by a manual of personnel policies). Because the conflict in the provisions of American Freight’s handbook arises solely from the written terms, the question of which provision controls is one of law for the court. See Corbin, supra; Williston, supra. If a *440conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision, the specific provision is to govern. Enchanted World Doll Museum v. Buskohl, 398 N.W.2d 149 (S.D.1986). Thus, the more specific provision here requires that before American Freight terminates an employee for tardiness, the employee must be given a warning.
Since the specific contract provision regarding tardiness controls, the next question to be resolved is whether this provision was applicable to the facts here, and whether the provision was breached. See Toussaint, supra (Having first resolved the question of whether a contract existed under which the employee could be terminated only for cause, the jury could then determine the reason for the discharge and whether the contract was breached). Resolution of the reason for Bauer’s discharge is necessary in this case because if Bauer was terminated for tardiness without any warning, then the controlling handbook provision was violated. But if Bauer was terminated for some other reason under the “Code of Conduct” provisions then American Freight could discharge Bauer without warning. See Johnston, supra. “The jury is always permitted to determine the employer’s true reason for discharging the employee.” Toussaint, supra 292 N.W.2d at 896; see also Khanna v. Microdata Corp., 170 Cal.App.3d 250, 215 Cal.Rptr. 860 (1985) (Reasons for termination are for the jury under California law which applies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment contracts). The true reason for Bauer’s discharge is a matter for the jury in this case, because the question may involve, among other things, consideration of the nature of Bauer’s duties and the credibility of American Freight’s management personnel, who claim a variety of other reasons for Bauer’s discharge. Once the reason for Bauer’s discharge is resolved, then the question of breach can finally be answered.
Therefore, the summary judgment should be reversed and remanded.