Opinion ID: 2339576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Live-Haul Employees

Text: Halifax also challenges the Superior Court's legal conclusion that the live-haul employees were employed by a covered establishment for the purpose of Section 625-B. It is Halifax's contention that the covered establishment phrase applies only to those who work physically within a plant. As a result, Halifax seeks to have this Court reverse the trial justice with respect to his award of severance pay to live-haul employees. As was discussed above, Section 625-B requires that employers who terminate a covered establishment pay severance benefits to their employees. The term covered establishment moreover, is defined by the Act as any industrial or commercial facility or part thereof which employs or has employed at any time in the preceding 12-month period 100 or more persons. 26 M.R.S.A. § 625-B(1)(A). The Halifax packaging and processing plant in Winslow fits squarely within the definition of covered establishment delineated above. The live-haul employees, moreover, were employed by this facility. Although most of their activity occurred outside the physical space of the plant, the following facts support the trial justice's ultimate conclusion that they were employees of a covered establishment for purposes of the Act: (1) the men were paid by Halifax, (2) their jobs were essential to Halifax's poultry processing operations, (3) live-haulers reported to the plant and were supervised by Halifax foremen, (4) these employees were rendered unemployed by the closing. As a result, the Superior Court's award of severance pay to the live-haul employees must be sustained.