Summary Termination Validity Based on Insufficient Warning

The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision not to recognize a summary termination for cause, ruling that prior warnings issued to the employee for unexcused absences and lateness lacked the requisite warning function for immediate dismissal under Art. 337 OR. The court reasoned that while the warnings served to reprimand the behavior, they failed to clearly communicate that any future misconduct would result in immediate termination rather than just ordinary termination or that the employee needed to improve within a specific timeframe to avoid such a drastic consequence, noting that a general contractual warning does not substitute for a specific, individualized warning clearly indicating the risk of summary dismissal.