The commenter suggested that if an employer remains closed for 4 months, it should be required to demonstrate an intent to reopen. H2370 (daily ed. In addition, it provides answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about employer requirements and employee rights under WARN, Web site links to the … WARN provides that, where there is a representative of affected employees as of the time of notice, an employer must provide notice to that representative rather than directly to the workers. The commenter also suggested that the rule should define the terms "good faith" and "reasonable". (12) Effective Date The Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) specifically commented on the application of WARN to its activities and those of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) in the current savings and loan (S & L) banking crisis. In all of the notices, the requirement that the notice identify whether the proposed action is a plant closing or mass layoff also has been eliminated and the requirement has been revised to require that the employer state whether the planned action is temporary or permanent and, if applicable, to state that the entire single site of employment will be closed. DOL agrees that the general rule is that foreign sites are not considered covered by a statute unless coverage is specified in the language of the act, and have added an exclusion for foreign sites of employment to the definition of single site of employment. Language has been added to the final regulations to make it clear that the alternative test is only to be used in unusual situations and is not to be invoked for the purpose of evading WARN. Thus, conditional notice is permitted only if there is a definite event, like the renewal of a major contract, the consequences of the occurrence or non-occurrence of which will definitely lead to a covered plant closing or mass layoff less than 60 days after the event. This language, particularly the use of the words "results in", contemplates that both employment losses of the employees who work in the facility(s) or operating unit(s) and those who lose their jobs as the direct result of the shutdown(s) are to be counted in determining when a plant closing has occurred. A commenter suggested that the regulation should be revised to provide that an employer need not give notice when replacing an unfair labor practice striker since it will be required to rehire that worker at the end of the strike. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR To the extent that their workforces only work on a project-specific basis, the employers are exempted from having to give notice under the Act and the regulations. In so doing, the final regulations have been revised to stress that the alternative test is intended to be used only in unusual situations. The Department concludes that its earlier reliance on the legislative history is not supported by the later changes in the language of the transfer provision. The Department generally agrees with all these statements and believes the final regulations reflect them; but notes that the buyer is responsible for giving notice to workers if it does not hire them. In this situation, the layoff is not automatically deemed an employment loss. One commenter suggested that nothing in the WARN provision on sales requires that a buyer actually hire the seller's employees. (3) Section 639.2 What Does WARN Require The regulation also provides that the employer's financial situation will be viewed in a company-wide context. Several commenters raised questions about the definition of "[i]ndependent contractors and subsidiaries" in §639.3(a)(2). The exemption for a lockout is applicable only if the closing or layoff constitutes a lockout. ACTION: Final rule. July 8, 1987) (remarks of Sen. Kennedy)). Several commenters continued to oppose DOL's "interpretation" of the effective date. The legislative history is not helpful on the specific question of coverage of public and quasi-public business enterprises. Another commenter asserted that the narrowness of the "faltering company" exception will preclude any unionized company from using it because it could lead to onerous information disclosure requirements under the NLRA. This discussion has been revised to make it clear that the provision preserves notice rights, but creates no other employment rights and that the technical termination that may be deemed to occur upon the consummation of the sale does not, in itself, create notice rights. None of the comments discussed this provision and it remains unchanged in the final regulations. This language can be interpreted to require either that notice be given 60 days before the beginning of the 6-month period in which hours are to be reduced more than 50% or that notice be given 60 days before an employee will suffer 6 consecutive months of more than 50% reduction in hours (that is, 60 days before the end of the 6-month period.) The content of notice requirements provide for some flexibility where this situation exists. 601 Note. Businesses must give notice to: All affected employees ; Any employee representative(s) The New York State Department of Labor (DOL) The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor (DOL or Department), since the enactment of WARN, has published in the Federal Register for comment various notices, a discussion paper, an interim interpretative rule and a proposed rule on WARN. Notice is also not required when an employer permanently replaces "a person who is deemed to be an economic striker" under the NLRA. On November 11, 2020, Gov. The prefatory language in §639.4 states the basic rule of WARN about giving notice to the appropriate parties. One notice is sufficient no matter how far in advance it is given if it contains the information required in section 639.7. (DOL notes again the caution that the employer must evaluate the facts as they appear when it must make its decision to give notice.)