omspot.blogg.se

Farmers telephone
Farmers telephone















#Farmers telephone trial

The trial judge ruled that the provisions in the handbook did not create an employment contract because they neither addressed duration of employment nor termination. Prescott points to both the provisions in the employee handbook and the oral representations from his supervisors as altering at-will employment status. Prescott first contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because material questions of fact exist as to whether FTC breached an employment contract. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence and the inferences should be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On a motion for reconsideration, the trial court granted summary judgment to FTC on all claims except the defamation claim. Prescott filed suit, alleging breach of employment agreement, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, intentional interference with economic relationship, promissory estoppel, and sought specific performance of his employment contract. Finally, Prescott also testified that a contractor refused to hire him after FTC told the contractor that it would rather Prescott not be hired for any jobs involving FTC. Further, while three of Prescott's co-workers did admit to stealing cable from the Bishopville jobsite, they did not implicate Prescott. He stated that it was common practice for splicers who needed odd pieces of cable to get them from the scrap bin. Prescott denied taking any cable, and testified that the cable was in the scrap bin for at least a week before Adams questioned him about it. A week later, company officials called Prescott to a meeting and informed him they were terminating him for "lying." Pursuant to instruction, *384 Prescott appealed the decision progressively through company officials until the General Manager affirmed the decision. District Manager Dent Adams then questioned Prescott, and suspended him pending an investigation. The officials evidently used "sequency markers" printed on the side of the cable to determine that some of Prescott's spare cable was missing from the scrap bin. Prescott testified he did so, and also threw away a quantity of insulating sheath that had come off some of the cable.Ī few days later, FTC officials commenced an investigation due to missing cable from both the Bishopville and Pocalla job sites. A company official named Joe McCants then contacted Prescott and asked him to put his spare cable into the company's scrap bin. During the job, some of Prescott's co-workers reported that a section of spare cable was missing from where they had left it. After the Bishopville job was completed, Prescott was temporarily transferred to work under supervisor Ronnie Joye at the "Cain's Mill" or Pocalla jobsite. In 1992, Prescott was assigned to work on a project near Bishopville in Lee County. Prescott testified he interpreted "keeping your nose clean" to mean "don't go out there and get into trouble and do things you're not supposed to be doing," both at and outside of work. Prescott testified without contradiction that three supervisors repeatedly told him during the period of his employment that "s long as you did your job kept your nose clean, you'd have a job right on." Prescott also believed the employee handbooks contained this promise as well. Over the years, Prescott was promoted through a number of different jobs until he became a splicer. Prescott began working for FTC in 1972 as an inexperienced lineman. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

farmers telephone

Prescott appeals from the grant of summary judgment to FTC *383 on five of his six causes of action. In this action, Prescott sued his former employer, Farmer's Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Jordan, both of Schwartz, McLeod, DuRant & Burchstead, Sumter, for respondent. Edward Bell, III, of Bell & Moore, Sumter, for appellant. FARMERS TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.















Farmers telephone