Court Opinion

ID: 9581370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:14:16.706724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:54.006147
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice EXUM
concurring.
I do not understand the Court to hold that personnel policy manuals distributed, or personnel policies explained, to employees by employers can never be part of the contract of employment binding on the employer. Rather I read the Court’s opinion to say that the “Management Procedure” brochure relied on by plaintiff and attached to the complaint cannot in law be a part of plaintiffs employment contract because the brochure makes no promises, express or implied, to defendant’s employees. Rather the brochure because of its unambiguous, plain terms is as a matter of law a guide for defendant’s managers, creates no benefits for defendant’s employees, and imposes no limitations on defendant’s power to discharge plaintiff at will. Neither could the plaintiff reasonably rely on the brochure as limiting the circumstances under which he could be discharged. I concur in the Court’s legal construction of the brochure and in the result reached on the basis of that construction.
In my view an employer’s personnel policies, if couched in language that either expressly or by implication makes promises to employees, may bind the employer to these promises and restrict the employer’s power to discharge even if the policies are unilaterally promulgated and are supported by no consideration apart from the employee’s acceptance or continuation of employment. See Trought v. Richardson, 78 N.C. App. 758, 338 S.E. 2d 617, disc. rev. denied, 316 N.C. 557, 344 S.E. 2d 18 (1986); Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W. 2d 622 (Minn. 1983); Toussaint v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W. 2d 880, reh’g denied, 409 Mich. 1101 (1980); see generally, Note, Employee Handbooks and Employment at Will Con*634tracts, 1985 Duke L.J. 196 (1985). I do not understand our decision today to hold to the contrary.
Justice Martin joins in this concurring opinion.