Warn Act Employees: WARN Notice Maternity, Medical Leave, Workers’ Compensation

Question presented:

If I was on leave—workers’ compensation, medical, maternity, or other leave—when notice was given to other workers, should I have received a notice as well?

We invite your attention to our disclaimer.

Yes. Workers on leave who reasonably expect that they will continue employment with their employer are due notice despite being on leave at the time notice was provided to other workers.

Legal Reference

Scope & Definitions, Mass Layoffs
In Lab. Code, § 1400, the California Legislature has set out the definition of a number of key terms used in the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), Lab. Code, § 1400 et seq. Section 1400, subd. (d), defines “mass layoff.” Under that provision, a “mass layoff” is a layoff during any 30-day period of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment. § 1400, subd. (d). The word “layoff,” in turn, is defined in the immediately preceding subdivision as a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work. § 1400, subd. (c). Thus, the plain language of the relevant provisions of § 1400 and Lab. Code, § 1401 indicates that the notice obligation is triggered for employers operating covered establishments when 50 or more employees are separated from their positions within a 30-day period. MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc., 134 Cal. App. 4th 1076


Next, appellants refer to recently passed federal legislation which mandates a certain period of notice for certain layoffs and plant closures, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). (29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.) However, WARN took effect only in February 1989, long after the 1986 plant closure in issue here; and WARN and its legislative history do not indicate appellants’ state [***13]  law claims would survive preemption under the NLRA. It is true that a state statute modelled on WARN, providing a minimum notice period as a state labor standard, could well survive preemption under the NLRA. (Cf. Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne (1987) 482 U.S. 1 [96 L.Ed.2d 1, 107 S.Ct. 2211] [Maine statute providing minimum severance pay standard not preempted by ERISA or the NLRA].) However, appellants here do not make claims about any state statute providing a minimum labor standard requiring notice  [*1411]  of plant closure; rather, they make claims about respondents’ alleged bad faith, misrepresentations, and concealment of facts in urging them to propose modifications to the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Such claims clearly are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB. Machinists Auto. Trades Dist. Lodge v. Peterbilt Motors Co., 220 Cal. App. 3d 1402