Handling the "warn" part of WARN
Blanche
24 Posts
Regarding the 60 day notice (or pay in lieu of notice) provision of WARN, I'm interested in your thoughts on the following hypo.....
Widget Co. USA had 500 employees on September 1. Due to a slowing economy and decreased demand for widgets, the Company laid off 100 employees on September 2nd. Where this impacted less than 33% of the workforce, this action did not meet the threshold of a "mass layoff", and did not trigger WARN. Sadly, though, business continued to slide and the Company laid off an additional 135 employees on November 25. This second action impacted more than 33% of the workforce in and of itself, and therefore WARN clearly applies. BUT, what about the 100 folks let go 84 days earlier? They fall within the rolling 90 day "look back" period, so are therefore part of the "total number of affected workers laid-off" (DOL phraseology). How does the employer address the 60 notice / pay in lieu of notice issue with these already separated workers (who signed general release agreements in order to receive severance pay)?
I am getting conflicting interpretations from our attorneys. One office says they need to be paid the 60 days, the other says the second action is greater than 33% alone and therefore is separate and distinct from the first - no WARN extension to the first group. These are attorneys from one the the top rated employment firms in the US, and even they struggle with WARN (I don't feel so bad....)
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!?
Widget Co. USA had 500 employees on September 1. Due to a slowing economy and decreased demand for widgets, the Company laid off 100 employees on September 2nd. Where this impacted less than 33% of the workforce, this action did not meet the threshold of a "mass layoff", and did not trigger WARN. Sadly, though, business continued to slide and the Company laid off an additional 135 employees on November 25. This second action impacted more than 33% of the workforce in and of itself, and therefore WARN clearly applies. BUT, what about the 100 folks let go 84 days earlier? They fall within the rolling 90 day "look back" period, so are therefore part of the "total number of affected workers laid-off" (DOL phraseology). How does the employer address the 60 notice / pay in lieu of notice issue with these already separated workers (who signed general release agreements in order to receive severance pay)?
I am getting conflicting interpretations from our attorneys. One office says they need to be paid the 60 days, the other says the second action is greater than 33% alone and therefore is separate and distinct from the first - no WARN extension to the first group. These are attorneys from one the the top rated employment firms in the US, and even they struggle with WARN (I don't feel so bad....)
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!?
Comments
Susan Fentin