at will if they “do not contain express provisions for duration or termination”), review denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 1985). Thus, the district court correctly determined that a contract for a specific duration is sufficient to create employment terminable for cause. Appellant next argues that the district court erred in its interpretation of the 2001 and 2002 contracts. Characterizing the 2001 and 2002 contracts as “bonus agreements” or “compensation agreements” rather than employment contracts, appellant argues that the specific references to a one-year duration refer only to the period for calculating respondent’s bonus and are, therefore, insufficient to convert an at-will employee into employment terminable for cause. See Rognlien v. Carter, 443 N.W.2d 217, 220 (Minn.App.1989) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Sept. 21, 1989). We
holding even in context of employee manual that policy which included agreement to provide annual salary increase of five percent did not constitute contract between city and employees and distinction between atwill employees and public employees was not dispositive in this context holding that use of annual salary rate created fact issue as to whether the employment contract was atwill or for a specific term holding that a letter outlining an employees salary structure was insufficient to modify atwill status holding that an unsworn letter was insufficient to contest a claim of exemption holding that anonymous letter was insufficient to entitle petitioner to hearing