“[A]n employer’s written promise to its employees constitutes an offer for a unilateral contract that can be accepted by an employee continuing to work while under no obligation to do so. . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “[A]n employer’s written promise to its employees constitutes an offer for a unilateral contract that can be accepted by an employee continuing to work while under no obligation to do so. . . .”
- " 'Where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, they must be applied and not construed,' Syllabus point 2, Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Haden, 153 W.Va. 721, 172 S.E.2d 126 (1969).”
- "The concept of unilateral con-tráete ⅛] where one party makes a promissory offer and the other accepts by performing an act rather than by making a return promise[.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice KETCHUM,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority decision. As I read Citynet’s Employee Incentive Plan, the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the entire balance of his vested fringe benefits when he quit.
In Syllabus Point 5 of Adkins v. American Mine Research, Inc., 234 W.Va. 328 , 765 S.E.2d 217 (2014), this Court reaffirmed the principle that the determination of whether a fringe benefit is a “wage” payable under the Wage Payment and Collection Act “is governed by the terms of the employment agreement, whether written or in the form, of a consistently applied unwritten ■ policy.” According to § 5.7(b) of the written Incentive Plan, the plaintiff was only entitled.to redeem up to a maximum of 20% of his vested balance each calendar year. Citynet appears *99 to have structured the plan to maintain the stability of its investments in the Incentive Plan, and to only allow employees to make withdrawals at limited times, in limited amounts. I am not wholly convinced that the majority opinion’s interpretation of the Incentive Plan is correct, because it interprets the written language in a way that destabilizes the Incentive Plan for employees other than the plaintiff.
Put simply, I would have reversed the cirquit court and entered judgment in favor of the employer.