Carbanteer V. International Harvester Case Summary

Bleary understood the chain of command at U.S. Steel - he had navigated it appropriately and successfully in the past when questioning company decisions. His initial concerns were reasonable and voiced appropriately and was told it was a nonissue and to continue selling the product. He agreed to these directions initially, but later decided he did not accept his supervisor’s assurance that his concerns were unfounded. Instead, without evidence for concern, Bleary leveraged a personal relationship in order to bypass the chain of command and bring his concerns directly to Vice President Neckert. It is because of these inappropriate behaviors that Bleary was terminated. In Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (Florado 1976), Palmateer reported to police the possibility of current criminal activity of an employee of International Harvester Co.

He was fired for these actions.

This case is distinguishable from Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. 1976 in that Bleary was not fired as a direct result of reporting the information. He was not fired after reporting to his supervisor, both in person and later via written communication. He refused to sell the product, complained to anyone that would listen and violated the company communication policy. He had become a “nuisance”, unable to fulfill his job requirements and unable to work effectively with fellow employees. Palmateer’s actions posed no threat to the daily operations of International Harvester Co. Bleary’s actions on the other hand, were infringing on the company’s interest of maintaining business operations. While we support Bleary’s right to voice his concerns, the court cannot grant protection to every unqualified employee with unfounded speculation to disrupt a company’s normal course of

business.
While not binding in the state of Florado, we urge the court to consider Conrad v. Rofin-Sinar, Inc. (Michigan 1983). Conrad v. Rofin-Sinar, Inc. established the potential for an implied-in-fact contract based on the employment relationship. Five factors are considered:
1. A long-term employment relationship
2. A stated policy that terminations are for-cause only
3. Assurances that the employee has been doing a good job
4. The absence of negative evaluations or feedback in the employee’s record
5. The existence of an employment manual or document that acknowledges a for-cause-only termination policy.
While Bleary had worked for US Steel for 14 years and had a satisfactory record with the company, there was no stated policy in regards to for-cause terminations and no employee manual. We accept only three out of these five factors as satisfied, and thus find no implied-in-fact contract requiring cause for termination.