WPCg# 5# UN %O 0 (Uw@}4 0l 0DL 0J 0T 0^. 0h 0r 0Df 0| 0& 0 1u< 0d U > B)S 0@| D3 DC AM2 U*   T k AQW Bn 0D D/ BJeocDv~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DPӀzz!3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  (3$ !  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("$    ++++'dxd7Border 1dd* "C << G<  9p`(Arial !  "  $$   YYY FILED$X April18,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.$AppellateCourtClerk  !   $       Ifthethreeviolationsdidnotoccurwithinaoneyearperiod, thenthedisciplinedropsbackonestep. J !   $       Inhiscomplaint,Rosealsoassertedaclaimforretaliatorydischarge. See T.C.A.501304(1991).Onappeal,however,noissuehasbeenraisedregardingthetrialcourtsdismissalofthisclaim. a !   $       Thehandbookdefinesinsubordinationas [d]isregardingorrefusingtocomplywithinstructionsorjobassignmentsgivenbyauthorizedpersonnel,including anyverbalornonverbalshowingofdisrespecttowardyoursupervisor.* ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd @ !   $       Inasmuchastheresolutionofthiscaseiscontrolledbytheabovestatedissueoflaw,weagreethatthecasewasappropriateforsummaryjudgment. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,216(Tenn.1993).  !   $       Seealso  Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,743F.Supp.1273,1278(M.D.Tenn.1990)( Indeed,thenonexistenceofadefinitetermofemploymentattheoutsetofemploymentdoesnotprecludethemodificationoftheemploymentcontracttoprovideforadefinitetermortoprovideforothertermsoriginallynotcontainedintheemploymentcontract.). e !   $       Gregoryv.Hunt ,24F.3d781,785(6thCir.1994); Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,743F.Supp.1273,1279(M.D.Tenn.1990); MacDougalv.Sears,Roebuck&Co. ,624F.Supp.756,759(E.D.Tenn.1985). : !   $        ` XForunpublisheddecisionsonthissubject,see Guekelv.CumberlandSwan,Inc. ,No.01A019410CV00482,1995WL386558,at*3(Tenn.App.June30,1995)(handbookreservedtoemployer therighttomakechangesintheguidelinesoftheirapplicationasitdeemsappropriate...withorwithoutnotice); Gainesv.ResponseGraphics,Inc. ,No.01A019204CV00181,1992WL319441,at*2(Tenn.App.Nov.6,1992)(handbookprovidedthatitcouldberevisedwithoutnotice); Criggerv.ColumbiaPower&WaterSys. ,No.01A019001CV00036,1990WL121570,at*2(Tenn.App.Aug.24,1990)(handbookexpresslystatedthatitcouldbeunilaterallychangedatanytimebyemployer), perm.app.denied (Tenn.Jan.28,1991); Smithv.DixieCementCo. ,No.C.A.89248II,1989WL146739,at*3(Tenn.App.Dec.6,1989)(handbookspecificallyprovidedthatchangesmaybemade fromtimetotime); Blalockv.HecksDiscountStores ,No.C.A.140,1986WL4591,at*1(Tenn.App.Apr.18,1986)(handbookreservedtoemployer righttomakechangesintheguidelinesortheirapplicationasitdeemsappropriate).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! .   \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON@ _______________________________________________________  ) ROYROSE,  ) TiptonCountyCircuitCourt ) No.3745̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) )VS. ) C.A.NO.02A019608CV00189*R#%"A1-j|S`  `@R ) TIPTONCOUNTYPUBLICWORKS  ) DEPARTMENT,JEFFHUFFMAN,  ) COUNTYEXECUTIVE,CURRIE  ) ERWIN,JAMESHARKNESS,  ) JOHNMcINTYRE,JAMESOSBURN , ) SHELBYROSE,HAROLDTWISDALE ,) CLIFFORDWILSON , ) )̀Defendants/Appellees. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofTiptonCountyatCovington. HonorableJosephH.Walker,Judge FrankDeslauriers ,Covington,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellant. JamesL.Holt,Jr., JACKSON,SHIELDS,YEISER&CANTRELL,Cordova,Tennessee DukeH.Brasfield ,Covington,TennesseeAttorneysforDefendants/Appellees.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED FARMER,J.CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)  ` ` X Inthisactionforbreachofanemploymentcontract,PlaintiffRoyRoseappealsthetrialcourtsorderenteringsummaryjudgmentinfavorofDefendants/AppelleesTiptonCountyPublicWorksDepartment,CountyExecutiveJeffHuffman,andindividualmembersoftheTiptonCountyPublicWorksDepartmentCommittee.ThetrialcourtgrantedtheDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentbasedonthecourtsconclusionthatanemployeehandbookdistributedbythePublicWorksDepartmentin1982,andrevisedin1988,didnotconstituteanemploymentcontract.Weaffirm. RosebeganworkingforthePublicWorksDepartmentin1979.Atthetimehewashired,Rosesignedastatementacknowledgingthathisemploymentwas fornodefiniteperiodandthathecould beterminatedatanytimewithoutanypriornotice.In1982,theDepartmentpromulgatedanemployeehandbook.TheDepartmentreviseditsemployeehandbookin1988.ThecurrentversionofthehandbooksetsforthaprogressivesystemofdisciplinewhichcategorizesoffensesintoClassIandClassIIoffensesanddescribesthedisciplinaryactionwhichwillresultfromviolationsofeachcategoryofoffenses.ForClassIoffenses,thefirstviolationresultsinsuspensionwithoutpayforaperiodofuptothirtydays,andthesecondviolationresultsinautomatictermination.ForClassIIoffenses,thefirstviolationresultsinawrittenreprimand;thesecondviolationresultsinsuspensionwithoutpay;andthethirdviolationresultsindismissal,providedthethreeviolationsoccurredwithinaoneyearperiod. &   ׀ InAugust1991,theDirectorofPublicWorksterminatedRoseforinsubordination.Itwasundisputedthat,interminatingRose,theDirectordidnotfollowtheprogressivesystemofdisciplinesetforthintheDepartmentsemployeehandbook.ThehandbookcategorizesinsubordinationasaClassIIoffense,andthiswasRosesfirstviolation. AfterthePublicWorksDepartmentCommitteeupheldRosestermination,Rosefiledthislawsuitforbreachofemploymentcontract. '   ׀TheDefendantssubsequentlymovedforsummaryjudgment,contendingthatRosesactionshouldbedismissedbecausetheemployeehandbookdistributedbythePublicWorksDepartment,asamatteroflaw,didnotconstituteacontract.Basedonthisargument,thetrialcourtgrantedtheDefendantsmotionanddismissedRosescomplaint. Forpurposesofthesesummaryjudgmentproceedings,Roseappearstoconcedethathisactionsresultinginhisterminationconstitutedinsubordination. (   ׀Onappeal,however,RosecontendsthatthePublicWorksDepartmentwasinbreachofcontractwhenitterminatedRosebecausetheDepartmentfailedtofollowtheprogressivesystemofdisciplinesetforthinitsemployeehandbook.Thisappeal,therefore,requiresustodeterminewhethertheemployeehandbookdistributedbytheDepartmentconstitutedanemploymentcontract. /    Webeginouranalysisofthisissuewiththewellestablishedrule thatacontractforemploymentforanindefinitetermisacontractatwillandcanbeterminatedbyeitherpartyatanytimewithoutcause. Bringlev.MethodistHosp. ,701S.W.2d622,625(Tenn.App.1985); accord  Gravesv.AnchorWireCorp. ,692S.W.2d420,422(Tenn.App.1985); Whittakerv.CareMore,Inc. ,621S.W.2d395,396(Tenn.App.1981).BecauseTennesseecontinuestoadheretotheforegoing employeeatwillrule,apresumptionarisesinthisstatethatanemployeeisanemployeeatwill. Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,743F.Supp.1273,1280(M.D.Tenn.1990).Inthepresentcase,Rosedoesnotdisputethathewasan atwillemployeewhenhewashiredbytheDepartmentin1979.Rosecontends,however,thathis atwillstatuswaschangedbytheDepartmentspromulgationoftheemployeehandbookin1982. Evenintheabsenceofadefinitedurationalterm,anemploymentcontractstillmayexistwithregardtoothertermsofemployment. Williamsv.MaremontCorp. ,776S.W.2d78,80(Tenn.App.1988); accord  Hooksv.Gibson ,842S.W.2d625,628(Tenn.App.1992). 0   ׀Inthisregard,thisCourthasrecognizedthatanemployeehandbookcanbecomeapartofanemploymentcontract. Smithv.Morris ,778S.W.2d857,858(Tenn.App.1988)(citing Hambyv.Genesco,Inc. ,627S.W.2d373(Tenn.App.1981)); accord  Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,743F.Supp.1273,1278(M.D.Tenn.1990).Inordertoconstituteacontract,however,thehandbookmustcontainspecificlanguageshowingtheemployersintenttobeboundbythehandbooksprovisions. Smithv.Morris ,778S.W.2dat858.Unlessanemployeehandbookcontainssuchguaranteesorbindingcommitments,thehandbookwillnotconstituteanemploymentcontract. Whittakerv.CareMore,Inc. ,621S.W.2d395,397(Tenn.App.1981).Asstatedbyonecourt,inorderforanemployeehandbooktobeconsideredpartofanemploymentcontract, thelanguageusedmustbephrasedinbindingterms,interpretedinthecontextoftheentirehandbook,andreadinconjunctionwithanyotherrelevantmaterial,suchasanemploymentapplication. Claibornev.FritoLay,Inc. ,718F.Supp.1319,1321(E.D.Tenn.1989). Inasmuchasthedeterminationofthisissuedependsuponthespecificlanguageused, 1   ׀weexaminetheprovisionsoftheemployeehandbookdistributedbythePublicWorksDepartment,aswellasotherrelevantdocuments.Whenhereceivedacopyofthehandbookin1982,Rosesignedaformstating IrealizethattheseguidelinesshallbeenforcedforfulfillingthepurposeoftheDepartment.Therevisedhandbookdistributedin1988statedthefollowingpurpose:8 [T]obringintotheserviceofTiptonCountyPublicWorksDepartmentthehighdegreeofunderstanding,cooperation,efficiency,andunitywhichcomesthroughsystematicapplicationofgoodproceduresinpersonneladministration,andtoprovideauniformpolicyforallemployees,withallthebenefitssuchaprograminsures.Thehandbookindicatedthattheproceduresdidnotapplytoprobationaryemployees:8  EachnewCountyemployeewhohasbeenappointedtoapermanentpositionisrequiredtoserveaprobationaryperiodofatleast90days.Anemployeemaybeterminatedduringthisperiodforanyreasonwithoutrespectorreferencetotheproceduressetforthintherules.Employeeswhoreceivedpromotionsmustserveanewprobationaryperiodof30daysinthenewpositionsiftheyaretobepermanent.Employeeswhoaretransferredfromonedepartmenttoanothershallberequiredtoservenewprobationaryperiodsof30daysinthenewdepartments....Ifyourprobationaryperiodisdeterminedsatisfactory,youshouldberecommendedforapermanentappointment.InintroducingtheDepartmentsprogressivesystemfordiscipliningemployees,thehandbookstated:@ DEPARTMENTRULES8  Asanemployeeyouhavecertainresponsibilitiesinregardtoyourconducttowardsyourfellowemployees,thedepartment,andthepublic,whichisnotunliketheresponsibilitiesyouhaveasacitizen.Certainstandardsmustexisttoinsuretheorderlyoperationofthedepartment.Noattempthasbeenmadetoincludeeverypossiblebreachofgoodemployeeconduct,andwherenospecificruleexists,employeesareexpectedtofollowgoodcommonsense.8  BelowarelistedtheestablisheddepartmentrulestoserveasaguideforyourconductwhileemployedwiththePublicWorksDepartmentofTiptonCounty....Violationoftheseruleswillbringwrittenwarningsand/ordisciplinaryactionsincludingsuspensionanddischarge.InexplainingtheprogressivedisciplinesystemforClassIIoffenses,thehandbookstated:8  Thedepartmentrecognizesandacceptstheprinciple[of]progressivedisciplineand,therefore,hasdevelopedapositiveapproachtohandletheviolationsofClassIIrulesonbothanobjectiveandprogressivebasis.TheemployeewillreceiveawrittenreprimandforthefirstviolationofClassIIrule.ThesecondviolationofClassIIrulewillresultinsuspensionwithoutpay.ThethirdviolationofaClassIIrulewillresultindismissal.8  Thethreeviolationsmustoccurwithinaoneyearperiodoftime.Iftheydonot,thenthedisciplinedropsbackonestep.Finally,thehandbookprovidedthatitspoliciescouldbeunilaterallychangedbythePublicWorksDepartmentCommittee:8  ThegeneralpoliciesoftheDepartmentarecontainedinthisbooklet.However,itisimpossibletoprovideforeverysituationwhichcomesup.TheSupervisor,DeputyDirector,Director,andthePublicWorksCommitteeretainshis/her,ortheirpowertorespondappropriatelyinthesesituations.ThepoliciescontainedhereinaresubjecttochangebytheTiptonCountyPublicWorksDepartmentCommitteewithoutnotice. AftercarefullyreviewingthespecificlanguagecontainedinRosesemploymentapplication,theDepartmentsemployeehandbook,andotherrelevantmaterial,weconcludethatthehandbooksprovisionsareinsufficienttoovercomethepresumptionthatRosewasanatwillemployee.Althoughtheacknowledgmentformdistributedwiththehandbookin1982warnedemployeesthat theseguidelinesshallbeenforcedforfulfillingthepurposeoftheDepartment,wedonotperceivethislanguagetobeademonstrationbythePublicWorksDepartmentofitsintenttobecontractuallyboundbythehandbooksprovisions.Similarly,weconcludethatthehandbooksstatedpurpose, toprovideauniformpolicyforallemployees,isnotthetypeofspecificguaranteerequiredtoelevatethehandbooktocontractualstatus.Moreover,althoughthehandbookreferstothesystemofprogressivedisciplineas establisheddepartmentrules,anymandatesuggestedbythislanguageisunderminedbysubsequentlanguageindicatingthattherulesserveasa guidefortheemployeesconduct.Inasmuchastheforegoing languageisnotspecificenoughtogiverisetoaguarantee,weholdthatthehandbooksprovisionsareinsufficienttocreateabindingcontractbetweenRoseandthePublicWorksDepartment. Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,743F.Supp.1273,1281n.3(M.D.Tenn.1990). Insoholding,werejectRosesargumentthatthehandbooksprovisionregardingprobationaryemployeesrequiresadifferentresult.Theprovisionindicatesthatprobationaryemployeesmaybeterminated withoutrespectorreferencetotheproceduressetforthintherules.Rosecontendsthat,byimplication,nonprobationaryemployeesmaybeterminatedonlyinaccordancewiththeprogressivedisciplinesystem.Inrejectingthisargument,wenotethatcreatingsuchacontractbyimplicationappearstobeincontraventionoftherequirementthattheemployeehandbookcontain specificlanguageof contractualintent. See  Smithv.Morris ,778S.W.2d857,858(Tenn.App.1988); accord  Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,743F.Supp.1273,1279(M.D.Tenn.1990). OurholdingthatthehandbookisnotapartoftheemploymentcontractisbolsteredbytheexistenceofaprovisioninthehandbookindicatingthatitspoliciesaresubjecttochangewithoutnoticebythePublicWorksDepartmentCommittee. Anylanguagethatpreservesaunilateralrightonthepartoftheemployertoalterormodifythecontentsofthehandbookgenerallyprecludesthehandbookfrombeingconsideredanemploymentcontract. Claibornev.FritoLay,Inc. ,718F.Supp.1319,1321(E.D.Tenn.1989)(handbookreservedtoemployer therighttomakechangestothematerialcontainedinthisguidefromtimetotimetomeetchangingconditionsandbusinessneeds); see,e.g.,  Smithv.Morris ,778S.W.2d857,858(Tenn.App.1988)(handbookslanguageclearlyshowed thatmodificationswereanticipated); Bringlev.MethodistHosp. ,701S.W.2d622,624(Tenn.App.1985)(handbookreservedtoemployer righttochangeandabolishpolicies,procedures,rulesandregulations); 2   ׀ seealso  Gregoryv.Hunt ,24F.3d781,786(6thCir.1994)(handbookprovidedthatpolicieswere subjecttochangebymanagement,unilaterallyandwithoutnotice); Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,743F.Supp.1273,1279(M.D.Tenn.1990)(handbookreservedtoemployer therighttochangeanyorallsuchpolicies,practicesandproceduresinwholeorinpartatanytime,withorwithoutnoticetoyou).Suchlanguageinsteadindicates thatthehandbooksimplyconstitutedasetofguidelinesorasourceofinformationforanemployee. Claibornev.FritoLay ,718F.Supp.at1321.Inthepresentcase,thisconclusionissupportedbylanguageinthehandbookindicatingthattheDepartmentrulesare toserveasaguidefortheemployeesconduct. Ourresearchhasrevealedonlytwoappellatedecisionsinthisstateholdingthatanemployeehandbookwasapartoftheemploymentcontract.Thefirstsuchdecisioniseasilydistinguishablefromthepresentcase.In Hambyv.Genesco,Inc. ,627S.W.2d373,376(Tenn.App.1981),thehandbookspecificallyprovidedthat,forsolongastheemploymentrelationshipcontinued,thesepolicies shallbeTheGuaranteedPolicies,PracticesandProceduresoftheemployer.Aspreviouslydiscussed,theemployeehandbookinthepresentcasecontainsnosuchlanguageguaranteeingtheapplicationofitsguidelines. Themoredifficultcasetodistinguishis Williamsv.MaremontCorp. ,776S.W.2d78(Tenn.App.1988).Inthatcase,thecourtenforcedahandbookprovisionstatingthat,upontheresumptionofworkfollowingalayoff, employeeswillberecalledintheorderofseniority. Id. at80.Emphasizingtheword will,thecourtreasonedthattheemployer wasnotobligatedtocreateitssenioritypolicy,buthavingdonesotothedetrimentofthoserelyinguponthepolicy,itmaynotnowtreatitspromiseasanemptyone. Id. at8081. Nevertheless,webelievethepresentcasetobedistinguishablefrom Maremont .First,wenotethatthe Maremont decisioninvolvedarecallprovision,whilethehandbookprovisionsatissueinthepresentcasedirectlyaffecttheemployersrighttoterminateemployeesatwill.Courtshaveexpressedagreaterwillingnesstoenforcetheprovisionsofanemployeehandbookwhentheprovisionsaffectanemployeesrighttoreceivebenefits,asopposedtoanemployersrighttoterminateitsemployees. See  Gravesv.AnchorWireCorp. ,692S.W.2d420,422(Tenn.App.1985); seealso  Gregoryv.Hunt ,24F.3d781,785(6thCir.1994); Shelbyv.DeltaAirLines ,842F.Supp.999,1014(M.D.Tenn.1993), affd ,19F.3d1434(6thCir.1994).Further,theelementofreliancereferredtointhe Maremont decisionappearstobelackinginthiscase.In Maremont ,employeeswithsenioritymayhaveforegoneotheremploymentopportunitiesinrelianceontheemployerssenioritypolicyofconferringincreasedbenefitsuponemployeeswithtenyearsofemployment.NosuchreliancehasbeenallegedbyRoseinthepresentcase.Finally,wenotethatthe Maremont decisionmakesnomentionofanyprovisionpreservingaunilateralrightonthepartoftheemployertoalterormodifythehandbookscontents.Inthepresentcase,theemployeehandbookprovidedthatitspolicieswere subjecttochangebytheTiptonCountyPublicWorksDepartmentCommitteewithoutnotice.Aspreviouslyindicated,thepresenceofsuchaprovisiongenerallyprecludesthehandbookfrombeingconsideredacontract. Claibornev.FritoLay,Inc. ,718F.Supp.1319,1321(E.D.Tenn.1989). Thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoAppellant.` ` X _______________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)