Idaho- Suspended with no notice for no wrongdoing

[tearsofla]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

So my employer (a smaller company, only about 60 employees at 3 locations) overhired during the busy winter season. The location I am at has 30 employees whereas the other only have 9-10. Our managers at the location decided to suspend all but 12 employees (including themselves) and put us on 0 hours for until October. We are still employed but are being scheduled for 0 hours a week for 3-3 1/2 months and we were explicitly told to get another job. I personally have worked there for a year now, along with a few other employees that got cut off who are about the same in their duration of employment. Is this legal? Can we be suspended with no pay for 3 months just because they messed up and hired 3 times as many people as we needed?

 

[cbg]

Is this legal? Yes.

Can we be suspended with no pay for 3 months just because they messed up and hired 3 times as many people as we needed? Yes.

I trust you have filed for unemployment? And that you are looking for other work?

 

[justalayman]

You have been laid off in the parlance local to myself. When applying for unemployment benefits (which you should do immediately) you will likely be asked if you were provided a return to work date. Most states I have dealt with unemployment will allow you to not make an active job search if there is a definite return to work date if the date is within a reasonable or certain time specified within their rules. Other than that you will likely be required to seek work to be eligible for unemployment benefits.

The only law that I can see would be of concern would be the WARN act but it sounds like your emoloyer is too small to fall under the law. Basically if an employer has more than 100 employees who have been employed more than 6 months working more than 20 hours per week (average), if a layoff involves more than 1/3 of the work force the employer is required to provide a 60 day notice of the impending layoffs.


Other than that I don't see anything unlawful.

 

[cbg]

From what the poster says the employer is WAY too small to be subject to WARN.

 

[justalayman]

From what the poster says the employer is WAY too small to be subject to WARN.

Probably so but it only requires 100 employees to qualify. There may be more employees than op is aware of.

I was tossing it out there for two reasons;

1. Op can make a more accurate count of employees if they believe their estimaton may be incorrect by enough that WARN might apply

2. To state so others may have knowledge of the WARN act. Many people are not aware of it. If violated it can result in employees in involved in receiving those 60 days pay they should have earned if the employer violated the law.

 

[cbg]

If the poster had suggested that his employer had 90+ employees I'd agree with item 1. I find it difficult to believe that he can be off by 40 employees. I've worked for companies that size. I'm guessing you haven't. Believe me, you're not going to be that far off in your count. You might miss two or three. You won't miss 40.

Item 2, well, maybe. But I still think you're misleading the poster into thinking he's due something he's not.

 

[justalayman]

If the poster had suggested that his employer had 90+ employees I'd agree with item 1. I find it difficult to believe that he can be off by 40 employees. I've worked for companies that size. I'm guessing you haven't. Believe me, you're not going to be that far off in your count. You might miss two or three. You won't miss 40.

Item 2, well, maybe. But I still think you're misleading the poster into thinking he's due something he's not.

I'm not misleading anybody. I gave the info required to verify the matter. Often times people have no idea the count of administrative employees holed up in the offices where they are never seen. Employer has three locations so if we have your 2-3, per location, and op didn't consider administrative emloyees it starts to get possibly a lot closer to the magic number. I am simply tossing this out and letting the op do the math.


You did notice I said it probably is not applicable in my first post, right?

And I have worked for employers that had anywhere from a couple employees to employers with tens of thousands of employees.

 

[cbg]

You have your opinion, I have mine.

 

[commentator]

WARN is for closures and permanent lay offs. This is a very seasonal lay off, in which the employer is pretty much guaranteeing that the employees would not be subject to WARN requirements by providing them with (though telling them their "hours are cut" to zero) a general return/recall date. This does not mean they anticipate a permanent lay off of a significant percentage of their workforce. That's a major event, this is a very ordinary probably seasonal fluctuation as are common in some businesses. Of course they may be doing the "hours are cut" baloney instead of saying the employees are laid off in hopes that some of the workers will be too dumb to sign up for unemployment insurance, sometimes smaller employers are like this. But this situation is exactly what unemployment insurance is designed to cover, and it is very right, if the employer wishes to "hold" the employees, they'll give them a return date, and they will be job attached, not required to make a work search to draw benefits. The employees just have to state that they are working all the hours that are available to them and report any hours they did work in their weekly certification for benefits.

In my area there were several businesses which had a set operation where people went to work in the fall, worked like crazy until the next June, and then were off for four months. A lot of folks liked their summers off, and the employers had to pay in employer taxes for their habit of putting people out of work through no fault of their own during certain periods. But when they laid off hundreds, they were not required to file a WARN notice.

Incidentally, in my entire career with employment services 30+ several states during the times when NAFTA was closing them right and left, I saw WARN enforced perhaps 3 times, though I saw many hundreds of violators, and in most of the states I covered, it was 50 employees instead of the Federal 100 required for notice.