Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Waymack v. KCLA, Inc.
Citations: 10 Ark. App. 372; 664 S.W.2d 509; 1984 Ark. App. LEXIS 1489Docket: CA 83-57
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; February 22, 1984; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge, presided over a case involving an employment contract dispute where the appellant sought payment for two weeks of accrued vacation time after his employment was terminated. The trial court ruled against the appellant, but this decision was reversed on appeal. Key points from the case include: - The appeal was based on a written stipulation of facts accompanied by the employment agreement, with no additional evidence submitted. - The stipulation confirmed that the appellant was initially hired under a six-month written contract, worked the full duration, and that the contract was not renewed. Subsequently, an oral contract was formed, terminable at will, which lasted about one month before the appellant's termination. - The stipulation emphasized that the appellant was entitled to vacation time accrued at the rate of two weeks for each six-month employment period, as stated in the employment agreement. - The trial court's ruling was supported by references to legal precedents regarding vacation pay rights, particularly noting that rights to such pay depend on the express or implied terms of the employment contract. - The appellate court found that the employment contract clearly stipulated the appellant's right to two weeks of vacation at the end of the six-month period, which was unaffected by the non-renewal of his contract. - The court rejected the appellee's reliance on a precedent that suggested a discharged employee might lose accumulated vacation rights if not claimed annually, stating this did not apply in this case as the appellant was claiming earned vacation time and not excess time. - The court also referenced another case that reinforced the idea that employees are entitled to vacation pay accrued before retirement, irrespective of the timing of when the vacation credit is established. - The appellate court concluded by reversing the trial court's decision and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the appellant for $750.00, representing half of his monthly compensation, with agreement from the other judges. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the explicit terms of employment contracts regarding accrued benefits such as vacation time.