 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Truchan v. Condumex6/21/2002
upon which such a conclusion could be based. Certainly, there is no evidence beyond the most general of any overall change in economic conditions. While the reference in the December 8, 1997, information to the company's decision to "consolidate its operations in Texas" might give a hint of some change in Condumex's own economic conditions, a hint alone will not suffice. While there can be little question that this consolidation would have an impact upon the company's Livonia workforce, we cannot read the change in economic conditions clause in the severance pay policy as referring to such an impact.
More importantly, however, while these events "may require adjustments in staff levels," the operative word is "may." Phrased differently, we do not view the severance pay policy as being necessarily triggered by any of these events; we do not see anything that Condumex promised to its employees if any of these events, including a change in "economic circumstances" were to occur. Further we note that even if there were, by some linguistic alchemy, such a promise, it was capable of instilling a legitimate expectation of only if there were to be a layoff. Here, under the undisputed facts, we simply cannot find a basis for the trial court's declaration that there was such a layoff. Using the analysis implied in Toussaint and explicitly stated in Rowe and Rood, we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Condumex's motion for summary disposition.
C. Handbook Cases Outside The Wrongful Discharge Arena
Next, we must examine whether handbook cases outside the wrongful discharge arena of Toussaint may require a different result. We conclude that they do not. Dumas v Auto Club Ins Ass'n is instructive. There, as the Supreme Court described them, the plaintiffs' claims revolved around a deferred compensation plan that the Auto Club labeled the "Accrued Commission Plan." Under this plan, members of the Auto Club's insurance sales force would receive seven percent commissions on insurance policies sold and upon policy renewals. After a substantial drop in its cash reserves in 1997, the Auto Club implemented a change in its compensation plan so that salespersons would be paid a flat rate for each policy sold. Plaintiffs sued, alleging among other things a breach of contract.
The trial court, after various motions for summary disposition and partial summary disposition, divided the various plaintiffs into three groups. For our purposes, the most analogous group to plaintiffs in this matter is the trial court's Group A: those plaintiffs who were informed of the seven percent commission system upon being hired but who were not promised that the payment system would be in place for any particular duration. Similarly, here, plaintiffs were presumably made aware of the severance pay policy in the handbook upon being hired but, as we have noted above, Condumex did not promise them anything independently of the handbook provisions. With respect to Group A, the trial court in Dumas granted summary disposition, having determined that no claim for breach of contract existed. However, this Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition regarding the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.
The Supreme Court opened its discussion by stating the first question to be addressed as whether plaintiffs can maintain claims for breach of contract where defendant unilaterally altered the terms upon which the plaintiffs were compensated. The Court stated that, since no express promises of permanency were made to plaintiffs, any contractual rights to that effect had to spring from the legitimate expectations leg of Toussaint. Similarly, here, a
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.
|
|