 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hussein v. Cypress Semi-Conductor Inc.6/15/2004
In these consolidated certiorari appeals, relators Jamal Hussein, Abdul M. Ahmed, and Abdifatah M. Abdi challenge decisions by representatives of the respondent Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development denying their claims for unemployment benefits. Relators' employment ended after their employer, respondent Cypress Semi-Conductor (Minnesota), Inc., initiated a voluntary workforce reduction program due to a downturn in business. Relators submitted applications to be considered for that program, and Cypress accepted their applications.
In denying relators' claims for unemployment benefits, the commissioner's representatives concluded that relators quit their employment and were therefore disqualified from receiving benefits. Because Cypress made the final decision to end relators' employment, relators did not quit. We therefore reverse the decisions by the commissioner's representatives disqualifying relators from receiving benefits.
FACTS
Relators worked for Cypress at its manufacturing facility in Bloomington, Minnesota. Hussein worked as a test technician, Ahmed worked as a special operations operator, and Abdi worked as a semi-fabrication technician.
Due to an economic downturn, Cypress initiated a voluntary workforce reduction program. On October 25, 2002, an e-mail was sent to all employees by Cypress's human resources manager explaining that Cypress was "currently taking action to align expenses and staffing with production levels and company financial goals," that " orkforce reductions are part of this plan," and that " ome have already taken place, and more are needed to meet our goals." The e-mail offered employees a severance package and full benefits and pay through December 31, 2002, along with benefits for an additional six months and other incentives. The e-mail required interested employees to submit an application for the program in order to be considered and further explained that Cypress would "accept or decline applications." The e-mail warned that "some workforce reductions will be voluntary as a result of this opportunity [but that] others may involve employees who have not volunteered." The e-mail stated that " f your application is accepted, you will be notified by 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 30th. If you are not notified by then, your application has not been accepted."
Each relator filled out and submitted an "Application to Volunteer for Reduction in Force." Each application stated: "This is to signify my intent to voluntarily be included in the Reduction in Force." Each relator understood that Cypress would make the final decision regarding whether his application would be accepted for the program. One Cypress representative testified that
[someone from human resources] would go and talk to the supervisor to determine what the current departmental need would be, and then the supervisor would consult with their manager to decide if it was okay to lose somebody in that area and, if so, the expected date that it would be okay to lose someone.
Cypress informed applicants of their last day of work.
Approximately 20 out of more than 200 employees working in the same job classifications as relators chose to apply for the program. Among those 20 applications, all were accepted and none were refused by Cypress. Cypress claims that relators could have rescinded their applications at any time until they were accepted by Cypress.
DECISION
On review of an unemployment benefits case, this court must determine whether the record reasonably supports the decision of the commissioner's representative. Tuff v. Knitcraft, 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995)
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|