Opinion ID: 2570655
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Commissioner's Rulings

Text: ¶ 21 The Commissioner concluded that Verizon took the final action to terminate the employees within the meaning of WAC 192-150-100(1)(c) by selecting the employees to whom it offered the MVSP, automatically accepting those who volunteered and retaining the power to reject those ... who were not eligible for such participation. CR at 1089. ¶ 22 The Commissioner implicitly recognized that for an employer to take the final action, the employer must retain the right to reject employees who volunteer for the program. To that extent, she was correct. But she incorrectly concluded that the employees were entitled to summary judgment that Verizon retained that power here and thus took the final action in the termination. ¶ 23 Historical regulations and case law demonstrate that in order to take the final action, employers must retain the right to choose which employees to accept to the program after the employees have volunteered. In the rule making process for WAC 192-150-100, the ESD expressly declared that the new rule would only clarif[y], but... not change, existing policy and procedure. Wash. St. Reg. XX-XX-XXX (Feb. 5, 2001). Accordingly, the text of its predecessor, former WAC 192-16-070, is instructive. It applied when: (1) the employer announced a layoff, (2) the claimant was among those who volunteered, and (3) the employer determined which of the volunteers to lay off. Former WAC 192-16-070. These steps were plainly chronological and required the employer to retain control over the offer after the employee accepted. [7] . ¶ 24 The Nielsen decision also indicates that the rule requires employers to retain the right to reject volunteering employees. Nielsen is particularly persuasive because the ESD revised the rule expressly to resolve the Court of Appeals division split, in which Nielsen was one of the conflicting opinions. Wash. St. Reg. XX-XX-XXX (Feb. 5, 2001). The ESD adopted the Nielsen first and last action framework when it wrote the current WAC 192-150-100. The Nielsen court in turn had lauded the first and last action reasoning in Morillo, recognizing that the Morillo court had held that an employer took the last action when it retained the authority to accept the application and release the employee or reject it. Nielsen, 93 Wash. App. at 38-39, 966 P.2d 399. ¶ 25 Consistent with Nielsen, both Washington cases interpreting the final action requirement in the new WAC 192-150-100(1)(c) conclude that in order to take the final action, an employer must reserve the right to reject employee participation in a separation program. Employees of Intalco Alum. Corp. v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 128 Wash.App. 121, 130, 114 P.3d 675 (2005); Broschart v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 123 Wash.App. 257, 268, 95 P.3d 356 (2004). In Intalco, the company offered voluntary separation packages to employees and gave those packages to all volunteering employees. 128 Wash.App. at 130, 114 P.3d 675. Division One concluded that [o]nce Intalco's offer was formally accepted, the deal was binding on Intalco. Under these circumstances, the employees who accepted the severance package took the final action in the separation process. Id. ¶ 26 The Commissioner's ruling suggests that Verizon exercised its right to accept or reject volunteers in advance by preselecting a subgroup of employees to whom it initially offered the MVSP. However, neither the plain language nor the history of the rule requires that the program be offered to all employees. Even if Verizon had offered the program to a small subset of employees (which it did not [8] ), each individual employee still took the final action by deciding to participate in the program. [9] ¶ 27 We hold that the Commissioner erred in concluding that the employees were entitled to summary judgment that Verizon took the final action here. The record contains no evidence that Verizon retained the power to reject volunteering employees. In fact, the ESD concedes that once an election to participate took place, Verizon retained no control over who elected to participate. [10] Resp't's Br. at 22. ¶ 28 We further hold that Verizon is entitled to summary judgment that it did not take the final action. The undisputed facts show that the employees themselves took the final action in their separation process. Verizon offered the MVSP to employees, it did not reserve the right to reject any of the offerees, and it did, in fact, accept every employee who chose to participate according to the MVSP terms. Also undisputed is the fact that Verizon gave those employees who had already accepted the MVSP offer an eight-day period in which to rescind their acceptances. At every stage after Verizon made the MSVP offer, the employees were in control of whether they participated in the program. The employees, not Verizon, took the final action to end their employment. Accordingly, the employees who did leave Verizon did so voluntarily under the good cause rule, and they are not entitled to unemployment benefits.