dissenting:
I disagree with the majority that conditions for discharge promulgated in an employee handbook become part of an existing at-will employment contract absent a valid agreement to that effect.
Small presented no evidence that the parties agreed the provisions of the handbook were to become part of her employment contract. Moreover, she did not allege any consideration that would support an agreement to incorporate the terms of the handbook into her existing employment contract. The majority’s characterization of the employment contract as “unilateral” does not dispense with this requirement. Although mutuality of obligation is not an essential element in a unilateral contract, a valuable consideration is necessary. International Shoe Co. v. Herndon, 135 S. C. 138, 133 S. E. 202 (1926). Performance of that which one is already bound to do is not valid consideration. City of Spartanburg v. Spartan Villa, 273 S. C. 1, 253 S. E. (2d) 501, (1978); Castell v. Stephenson Finance Co., 244 S. C. 45, 135 S. E. (2d) 311 (1964). Mere continuation of employment is not suffi*488cient consideration to support an agreement altering the terms of an employment contract.
Because Small presented only evidence of an indefinite employment contract that was terminable at will, I would reverse the denial of Springs’ motion for a directed verdict. This conclusion is consistent with the decisions of many courts refusing to find that the provisions of a handbook modify the terms of an employment contract. See e.g., Muller v. Stromberg Carlson Corp., 427 So. (2d) 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983); Spero v. Lockwood, Inc., 111 Idaho 74, 721 P. (2d) 174 (1986); Gates v. Life of Montana Ins. Co., 196 Mont. 178, 638 P. (2d) 1063 (1982); Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 114 A. D. (2d) 6, 497 N. Y. S. (2d) 655 (1986); Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 77 N. C. App. 253, 335 S. E. (2d) 79 (1985), cert. denied, 315 N. C. 597, 341 S. E. (2d) 39 (1986); Richardson v. Charles Cole Mem. Hosp., 320 Pa. Super. 106, 466 A. (2d) 1084 (1983); Reynolds Mfg. Co. v. Mendoza, 644 S. W. (2d) 536 (Tex. App. 1982); Larose v. Agway, Inc., 147 Vt. 1, 508 A. (2d) 1364 (1986); see generally Annot., 33 A. L. R. 4th 120 (1984).
Unfortunately, today’s holding may result in the removal of employee handbooks from the workplace. Also, I fear the immediate effect of today’s holding on other at-will employees who, unlike Small, are satisfactory employees. Will not employee morale suffer because a skilled and efficient employee can be summarily terminated but a bungling and inept employee must receive all the warnings provided in a handbook? In discarding sound principles of contract law, the majority has unsettled existing employment law. In my view, today’s holding, without promoting job security, tends to stifle quality economic growth and development and hinder expanded job opportunities in this State. For these reasons, I would reverse.