legislation fixes

what isn't broken

SOUTH CAROLINA'S COURTS have crafted a sensible approach over the past 15 years about how a company's statements in its employee handbook can be used as evidence in wrongful firing cases: It has allowed juries to judge for themselves the relevance of the handbook claims. Now the Legislature is prepared to upset this well-balanced arrangement.

The S.C. House has passed, and the Senate has passed on second reading, a bill that essentially makes employee handbooks pointless. In the case of a wrongful dismissal suit, whatever a company had stated as its policies in the handbook would be legally irrelevant -- kept outside of a jury's consideration. If this legislation passes, it will be a major restructuring of employment law -- rearranging a system that is fair to all now.

This bill also is unnecessary, because companies that don't want to be held legally liable for statements in handbooks already have what is usually an easy out. They merely must include in the handbooks a prominent disclaimer, stating that the document is not a contract and cannot be cited as one in court. When companies use this caveat, they are being up-front with their employees at the time of hiring. Under the bill now pending, such employer-worker candor would be unnecessary.

Employers who fear that a handbook will prove a legal hindrance to firing employees at will also have a second option: They are perfectly free not to publish a handbook at all.

Given these options for companies with legal concerns, why is this legislation even needed? There's no reason why the Legislature should step in and tilt South Carolina's wrongful dismissal laws so much in favor of businesses. Instead, the Legislature would, if this bill is passed, be putting itself in the strange position of taking evidence away from juries -- evidence that the South Carolina Supreme Court is allowing juries to judge for themselves.

If this legislation passes, employees will understandably be inclined to disregard everything in an employee handbook, knowing that companies have a built-in legal immunity to ignore the documents they have handed out. That's a needless bit of damage to the management-employee relationship, which benefits from open communication.

Of course, this legislation will not affect those employees who already have a contract with their companies, such as unionized workers. If this legislation passes, it would only be natural for union backers to point to the measure as further evidence that workers should be unionized to protect their rights -- not exactly the message that business interests supporting this bill would want to send.

For legislation that meets no great state purpose, this bill moved through the S.C. House with impressive speed -- and without even a hint of debate. Given how the bill would change workers' relations with their employers across South Carolina, it deserves much more careful debate, as Sen. Kay Patterson tried to ensure. Its backers still need to make their case that the courts have gotten this facet of workplace law so wrong that the Legislature must step in -- a tough case to make in this instance. Absent that, the Senate would be wise to let this measure die, and to let the state courts continue trusting juries to judge such legal claims.