Employment Law - Unemployment

Front 1

Bankruptcy Relevance

Back 1

1) Collective Bargaining
2) Rights of Employees

Front 2

Bankruptcy Relevance - Collective Bargaining

Back 2

Bankruptcy can allow companies to avoid, and allows them to renegotiate.
- This means that unions have limited leverage because the bankruptcy court can just impose a new agreement.

Front 3

Bankruptcy Relevance - Rights of Employees

Back 3

- What is owed currently:
Generally this is low on the priorities in bankruptcy, but is also not a huge issue because it will be a small amount since they employees are usually paid in short periods (weeks)

- What happens going forward:
If the interest of the creditors is to have the employer to continue to operate, then the court will make sure that the employees know that they are still going to get paid.

Front 4

Plant Closings

Back 4

The courts will not force a company to stay in business and lose money.

Front 5

Plant Closing exceptions (2)

Back 5

1) Contracts With employees: If there is a contract that says a company will keep a plant open if the employees meet certain conditions (e.g. profitability).
2) Agreements With state: If a company agrees with the state to stay in exchange for tax abatements then they may be required to stay.

Front 6

WARN Act (def)

Back 6

Requires employers to give 60 days notice for mass layoffs

Front 7

WARN Act (applies) (2)

Back 7

1) Certain size plant
2) Certain size of lay off: While an employer has to lay off a certain number of employees , if they try to avoid certain numbers by laying off in smaller batches, then they can still be liable under WARN.

Front 8

WARN Act Requirements (2)

Back 8

1. 60 days notice
2. Back pay for any shorter notice

Front 9

WARN Act Exception (def)

Back 9

(Gross v. Hale-Halsell):
If the reason for the lay off is not reasonably foreseeable then they don’t have to give 60 days notice, but must still give notice as soon as possible (Arthur Anderson).

Front 10

WARN Act Exception - Reasonably foreseeable

Back 10

whether it is reasonably foreseeable if you are going to have to engage in a mass lay off.

- Not at fault (TSA): If it is not an employer’s decision to lay off employees then they are not liable under WARN. E.g. when the government federalized airport security.

Front 11

WARN Act Exception - Reasonably foreseeable - Government action

Back 11

(Pena v American meat): Can be foreseeable

Front 12

Unemployment Benefits (Funding)

Back 12

both employers and employees pay into the pot to fund unemployment.

Front 13

Experience rating system

Back 13

The amount that the employer has to pay is based on their employment rating.

- Not a true fault system: An employer’s exp rating will go up anytime they have an employee that leaves and is eligible for unemployment.
- This means that they don’t have to do something wrong for their rating to go up.
- This makes them want to push harder to show that their ex-employees are eligible.

Front 14

Unemployment Benefits (Requirements)

Back 14

to receive unemployment an employee must show that their unemployment was involuntary: either
1) Quit with good cause
2) Fired without just cause

Front 15

Quit with good cause (2)

Back 15

Eligible for unemployment benefits.
- Must show:
1) Good cause:
When the circumstances produce real and substantial pressure to that would compel a reasonable to terminate employment.
2) Attributable to the employer:
the conduct (action or inaction) of the employer must produce, cause, or create the conditions which render the job unsuitable.

Front 16

Fired without just cause

Back 16

Eligible for unemployment benefits.
- State types:
1. Just cause:
if the person is fired for just cause then they do not get unemployment.
2. Willful Misconduct:
There must be willful misconduct, not just just cause for the discharge. – “every justifiable discharge does not prevent someone from receiving unemployment benefits” (Pesce)

- Health risk: Generally if someone refuses to do something (fired/quit) because it would jeopardize their health or safety then they are eligible. However, violating a health/safety rule is enough to lose benefits
- Drug test: If not at work, then not work related and still eligible

Front 17

Employment Benefits - Eligibility Standards

Back 17

(Zambrano v Reinert):
Determined by the states

Front 18

Employment Benefits - Administrative standards

Back 18

These are how the benefits are paid.
- These are subject to the “when Due” clause of the social securities act.