 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Truchan v. Condumex6/21/2002
occur with the closing of the plant in Livonia and moving to Arlington, Texas.
My decision is based primarily on the impossibility to maintain one's life anywhere near . . . . Livonia, Michigan and keep their employment with the company in Arlington, Texas. And the fact that Defendant recognizes it by saying, the offer of employment is only open to a day. These terms and conditions to avoid severance pay, to the Court, clearly is simply an avoidance of severance pay pursuant to the contract . . . . [This] is an instance where I don't think there is, reasonable minds could not differ that there was a reduction in force, and I don't believe there is any ambiguity in the contract. I don't find an ambiguity. It is a reduction in force. Severance pay vested. Under Cain there was consideration. Pay it.
In the resulting order, the trial court denied Condumex's motion for summary disposition and, pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2), the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Following the order granting summary disposition to plaintiffs, the parties disputed the proper amount that plaintiffs should be awarded in the judgment. Ultimately, on May 3, 2000, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, awarding $28,140 to Truchan, $2,499.20 to Carnill, $7,502.40 to Mijal, $6,349.20 to Manley, and $5,817.80 to Fritz, subject to a twelve percent interest rate.
On appeal, we must decide whether the handbook granted plaintiffs contractual rights to severance pay and, if so, whether a question of disputed material fact existed concerning whether Condumex breached the contract by failing to give plaintiffs severance pay.
II. Standard Of Review And Legal Standard
In Henderson v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, the Michigan Supreme Court succinctly outlined the interaction between the standard of review an appellate court must apply to a summary disposition issue and the critical questions addressed in the relevant legal standard:
We review the grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition de novo. Further, the construction and interpretation of . . . contract is a question of law for a court to determine that this Court likewise reviews de novo. . . . It is axiomatic that if a word or phrase is unambiguous and no reasonable person could differ with respect to application of the term or phrase to undisputed material facts, then the court should grant summary disposition to the proper party pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Conversely, if reasonable minds could disagree about the conclusions to be drawn from the facts, a question for the factfinder exists.
III. Contract Rights
A. The Condumex Handbook
The handbook itself is the most logical starting place for determining whether plaintiffs had a contractual right to severance pay. The severance pay policy identifies the purpose of its existence and the terms under which it may apply, but not whether Condumex employees have any rights to enforce the policy. More relevant at the outset is the preface to the handbook, which clarifies the relationship between the policies it contains as a whole and plaintiffs' employment with Condumex.
Viewed broadly, the handbook preface emphasizes in a number of different ways that Condumex did not intend for it to provide employees with any rights. For instance, the second paragraph of the preface states that the handbook "is not intended as a statement of [employees'] rights . . . ." The independent clause at the end of the sentence applies that principle to the length of any employment relationship, emphasizing that all employees work at-will by s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|