SW Legal Educational Publishing

WARN Notification Date Is That When Workers Actually Employed
Description Seasonal workers told at the end of a harvest season that they would not be recalled during the next harvest, which began in more than 60 days, did not have a claim under WARN. The law takes effect while workers are actually working, not when there is some expectation of future work.
Topic Employment Law
Key Words Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
C A S E   S U M M A R Y
Facts Lettuce harvesters, formerly employed by Telles, received a letter at the end of November, telling them that Telles was ending its lettuce harvesting operations. Most employees were seasonal during the lettuce harvest from April to November. They contended that Telles did not provide them with the 60-day notice required by WARN before a plant closing or mass layoff. Telles contended that since the workers would not have been recalled before April, had operations continued, the workers had more than a 60 day notice. District court granted summary judgement for Telles; plaintiffs appealed.
Decision "Because we hold that the seasonal workers suffered an employment loss in April, at the earliest time they reasonably could have expected to be recalled to work, we affirm...." The only expectation of the workers was that they would be recalled in about five months; they were not employees once the harvest season ended in November. Hence, the notice was more than 60 days in advance.
Citation Marques v. Telles Ranch, Inc., --- F.3d--- (1997 WL 790553, 9th Cir.)

Back to Employment Law Listings

©1997  South-Western, All Rights Reserved