The Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers etc. v. NASSCO etc.
D070620
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- NASSCO temporarily placed about 90 employees on unpaid leave (3–5 weeks) in March–April 2014 because of a lull in work; employees returned to the same classifications and later recovered some reimbursed healthcare costs but lost wages, vacation accrual, and pension service credit during the furlough.
- Plaintiffs (the Union and three employees) sued under the California WARN Act seeking back pay and penalties, arguing NASSCO failed to give 60 days' notice of a "mass layoff."
- NASSCO admitted the numerical thresholds (covered establishment, number of employees, lack of work) but argued the California WARN Act did not apply because the furlough was temporary (less than six months) and not a termination.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs' summary adjudication on the duty-to-notify issue, held at trial that employees were entitled to back pay and lost pension benefits, denied statutory penalties (finding good faith), and entered judgment for $211,405 plus fees/costs.
- NASSCO appealed the summary adjudication ruling; the Court of Appeal considered statutory text, legislative history, federal WARN law, and policy factors in deciding whether a temporary separation can trigger the California WARN Act notice duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a temporary work stoppage/furlough (3–5 weeks) that resulted in separation from position qualifies as a "layoff" or "mass layoff" under the California WARN Act, triggering a 60-day notice duty | California WARN's definitions of "layoff" ("separation from a position for lack of work") and "mass layoff" encompass temporary separations; notice required | A "layoff" implies a severance/termination of the employment relationship; short temporary furloughs do not trigger notice (and federal WARN requires >6 months) | Court held the California WARN Act applies: a separation from a position (even temporary) can trigger the notice duty; summary adjudication for plaintiffs affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 1076 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (interpreting "separation from a position" and rejecting focus on separation from an employer)
- People v. Pennington, 3 Cal.5th 786 (Cal. 2017) (statutory interpretation principles: text, context, and legislative intent)
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 717 (Cal. 2011) (appellate review is de novo for statutory interpretation)
- Professional Engineers in California Gov't v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010) (distinguishing furloughs and layoffs in the public-employer statutory context)
- Collins v. Gee W. Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing WARN as remedial, protecting workers from sudden wage loss)