Court Opinion

ID: 9854128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:01:38.362044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:56.526294
License: Public Domain

*1141THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I have read with interest the dissenting opinion in this ease, and I am puzzled by the reliance there placed on Swiezynski v. Civiello, 126 N.H. 142, 489 A.2d 634 (1985). The rationale for the decision in Swiezynski is consistent in every respect with the opinion of the court in this'case. That case was remanded only for a determination, which the trial court had not made, “as to whether the partnership agreement provided that the defendants did not retain their legal rights of management.” Swiezynski, 489 A.2d at 639.
It is clear to me that, if the management contract in our case1 had been before it, the Swiezynski court would have had no difficulty in affirming the trial court. As the dissenting opinion emphasizes, by quoting from the “management contract,” Carbon County Coal Company, the partnership entity composed of Dravo Coal Company and Rocky Mountain Energy Company, is designated as the “Owner” that has this relationship to the General Manager:
“(d) General Manager. A General Manager, who shall have the responsibilities and authorities of the chief operating officer for Owner, shall be appointed by Owner and shall be responsible to and report to Contractor. The general supervision and management of the day-to-day operation of the Facilities shall be under the charge and control of the General Manager.”
This is a specific retention by the partners of their legal rights of management.
The “management contract” further provides, in pertinent language:
“2.02. Scope of the Work. * * * In performance of its Work, Contractor, through the General Manager or otherwise, will, on behalf of, and in the name of, Owner:
“(a) hire and discharge all labor and employees, and such labor and employees shall be and remain the separate employees of Owner, shall be carried on its payroll and shall be subject to its full charge, supervision, and sole discretion; * * *.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Surely, this language constitutes a retention of the right to control the employee’s work. Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 748 P.2d 704 (Wyo.1987).
It follows that not only is there an absence of any indication that in some respect the partnership agreement provided that the partners did not retain their legal rights of management, but the “management contract” specifically provided for the retention and exercise of such rights. Properly read and applied, Swiezynski supports the majority opinion. As for Mickelson v. Northern Plains Natural Gas Co., 644 F.Supp. 630 (D.Neb.1986), the charitable approach is to distinguish the case. If it is not distinguishable, it is plainly erroneous.

. The "management contract” is found as part of the record in Pool v. Dravo Coal Company, 788 P.2d 1146 (Wyo.1990).