|
 |
||
 | ||
| Friday, Feb 21, 2003 |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to the H-J | | |||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
Posted on February 19, 2003 Bill would reinforce state's 'at-will' employment statute tony.taylor@shj.com For almost 30 years, South Carolina employers have relied on court rulings to enforce their right to terminate an employee at will. But after the state Supreme Court ruled that an employee handbook could be considered a contract, the General Assembly is moving forward on a bill that would reinforce "at-will" employment. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill this month by a margin of 129-9. The bill was sent to the Senate on Feb. 5 and referred to the committee on labor, commerce and industry. The committee voted Tuesday to send the bill to the Senate floor. "We wanted to clarify that we are an at-will state," said Rep. Harry Cato, a Greenville County Republican who introduced the bill. "We felt the need to address it as a statute at this time for future economic development and put everybody on a level playing field." The doctrine of at-will employment gives employers the right to terminate an employee for any reason. Most states are at-will employment states. About 88 percent of private sector workers are classified as at-will employees, according to a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Only statutes that outlaw certain activities such as discrimination -- and for certain employees, contracts -- protect employees. The Legislature agreed to revisit the state's at-will employment statute at the urging of the state Chamber of Commerce. Business leaders were alarmed when the state Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 9 that an employee handbook could be considered a contract of employment. In Conner v. City of Forest Acres, Evelyn Conner, a police dispatcher, sued the city for breach of contract after she was terminated following several reprimands and unsatisfactory performance evaluations. The city's handbook contained an effective at-will disclaimer, but outlined procedures regarding progressive discipline, discharge and subsequent grievance that the court found to be mandatory terms. The court refused to dismiss the case because of the mandatory language and held that whether the handbook created a contract altering Conner's at-will status was a decision for a jury. As a result, employers have been scurrying to revise their handbooks and delete the words "will" and "shall" in reference to employee discipline. "It's led to employers having to go back and redraft their handbooks in uncommon language," said Wade Ballard, a Spartanburg attorney specializing in employment law. Rep. Floyd Breeland, D-Charleston County, was one of the few lawmakers who voted against the bill. Breeland said employee handbooks let employees know what is expected of them. "If a person is following their handbook then they shouldn't be fired without cause," Breeland said. Tony Taylor can be reached at 582-4511, Ext. 7219, or tony.taylor@shj.com. |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
All material ©2003 Spartanburg Herald-Journal | | |
| |||
