Unambiguous contract of employment language that is inconsistent with the employer’s policy nevertheless controls

To contact us Click HERE

Unambiguous contract of employment language that isinconsistent with the employer’s policy nevertheless controlsChatelle v North Country Community Coll, 2012 NY Slip Op08215, Appellate Division, Third Department
When North Country Community College hired Shane Chatelle asits Facilities and Special Projects Manager in 2004, the College’s Presidentprovided Chatelle with a letter setting forth his salary and enclosing a copyof the resolution of its Board of Trustees approving the appointment together witha written statement of the Board's "management confidential"* staff policy“purporting to provide,” that among other benefits, that Chatelle would becompensated for up to 180 days of accumulated sick leave upon his severancefrom employment.
In 2011, Chatelle resigned from his position and requestedcompensation for his accumulated sick leave. The College, claiming that,despite the statement provided to him upon his appointment, its actual policyauthorized compensation for accrued sick leave only upon retirement.
Chatelle sued, contending breach of contract, among otherthings. Supreme Court granted Chatelle’s motion in part, awarding him$44,114.96 in damages for breach of contract but dismissed his remainingclaims. Chatelle and the College “cross appealed” the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division said that the written statementprovided to Chatelle upon his employment indicated that he was entitled to"the benefits afforded by the existing [m]aster [a]greements except wheremodified or defined by the following [benefits]."
With regard to the sick leave benefit, the statementprovided that Chatelle was entitled to 30 sick days per year, cumulative to 180days and "[a]t [the] time of severance sick leave will becompensated."
Although the College, relying on extrinsic evidence, arguedthat the statement given to Chatelle was in error and that the Board hadintended to adopt a policy that only compensated for sick leave at retirement,the Appellate Division said that had “no reason to consider this [extrinsic]evidence because the statement's language is clear and unambiguous.”
Accordingly, said the court, the College is bound by theterms of the writing provided to Chatelle as part of his employment contract“and may not rely on its unilateral mistake to void the agreement,” explainingthat the text of the statement is clear and Chatelle does not rely on pastpractice nor claim “estoppel to enforce his contractual right.”
The Appellate Division, however, modified Supreme Court’sjudgment granting Chatelle $44,114.96 as payment for his unliquidated sickleave accruals by reducing the award to $4,770, “representing [Chatelle 's] 159accrued sick days at $30 per day."
* Presumably Chatelle was designated "managerial" or "confidential" within the meaning of  §201.7 of the Civil Service Law [The Taylor Law] upon his appointment.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08215.htm