N.J. at 393, 643 A.2d at 550.] The context of the preparation and distribution of the manual in this case supports the finding that the manual was intended to constitute an enforceable employment contract. Woolley, supra, 99 N.J. at 299, 491 A.2d 1257; see Schwartz v. Leasametric, Inc., 224 N.J.Super. 21, 31, 539 A.2d 744 (App.Div.1988). The entire manual was distributed to a substantial number of Wakefem’s workforce, although Nicosia may not have received it. See Woolley, supra, 99 N.J. at 304-05 n. 10, 491 A.2d 1257; Gilbert v. Durand Glass Mfg. Co., Inc., 258 N.J.Super. 320, 330, 609 A.2d 517 (App.Div.1992). As was the manual in Woolley, Wakefem’s manual, coincidentally, was distributed to 300 of the 3,000 person workforce. See also Witkowski, supra, 136 N.J. at 395, 643 A.2d at 551 (<HOLDING>); Preston v. Claridge Hotel & Casino, 231
holding that internal policy memorandum not generally distributed to employees did not create an implied condition to an employees contract even though that employee had requested an obtained a copy holding employee manual binding based in part on its widespread distribution holding an employee manual did not create contract restricting the employmentatwill relationship holding enforceable employee manual that was distributed to all employees 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