Opinion ID: 3010269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When Did Employees Suffer a Work Loss?

Text: It appears that as of June 25, 1992 (the day before the first letter), the employees, who were then in the usual summer status, had no reasonable expectation of working for Preferred until the end of the seasonal layoff in the fall of 1992. The summer shutdown in prior years did not cause compensable work losses under the WARN Act. It was the conversion of the seasonal layoff into a permanent one that constituted the triggering event, which required Preferred to give notice. The difference between the situation in 1992 and that of former years was that the workers would not be returning to their regular jobs at the usual time, but instead would be on indefinite layoff as of August 1, 1992. At that point, further employment was no longer available, just as in the more common situation when persons steadily employed throughout the year are removed from a company's payroll on a specified date. The letter of June 26, 1992 stated that the layoff was effective on August 1, 1992. This is inconsistent with Preferred's argument, which instead would have us look to the date in September when the seasonal layoffs usually ended. We believe that Preferred should be held to the terms in its letter. Moreover, Preferred treated the workers as former employees as of August 1, 1992 in connection with termination of benefits coverage, including health insurance. The starting point of the violation period, therefore, should be August 1, 1992 (the day specified in the employer's 9 notice) unless based on Preferred's previous recall practice, an employee reasonably expected to be recalled before that date.