 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hussein v. Cypress Semi-Conductor Inc.6/15/2004
reach the goals of its workforce reduction program is irrelevant. Although relators facilitated Cypress's layoff decisions by identifying themselves as potential candidates for layoff and applying for the program, Cypress initiated this program in order to reduce its workforce due to an economic downturn and retained the ultimate authority to decide whether any particular employee would be laid off.
Cases from other jurisdictions also provide support for our decision here. These cases tend to find in favor of employees who volunteer for job elimination if the first and last steps leading to termination are within the employer's control. See, e.g., Nielsen v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 966 P.2d 399, 408 (Wash. App. 1998) (holding that employees who participate in voluntary reduction in force program did not leave work voluntarily); Ford Motor Co. v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Serv., 571 N.E.2d 727, 730 (Ohio 1991) (holding that employee who elects voluntary termination under plan adopted by employer to reduce number of employees due to lack of work did not voluntarily quit and was entitled to unemployment compensation); Morillo v. Dir. of Div. Of Employment Sec., 477 N.E.2d 412, 413 (Mass. 1985) (holding that employee, who agreed to be one of those laid off after employer announced decision to lay off specified number of employees, did not "voluntarily" leave work because first and last step in termination process was taken by employer); Mo. Div. of Employment Sec. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm'n, 651 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Mo. 1983) ("It should not matter which of several employees are sacrificed, nor does it matter that a claimant participated in the decision. The ultimate choice belonged to the employer, and the ultimate responsibility for the unemployment of each of these claimants lies only with the employer's decision to reduce available jobs."). Because the first and last steps taken here were initiated and controlled by Cypress, relators' applications for the program should not be construed as decisions to quit employment.
Finally, we agree with relators that acceptance of their construction of the statutory definition of "quit" is consistent with the remedial purposes of the unemployment statutes. The supreme court has made it clear that we may examine whether a particular reading or construction of the disqualification provisions is "consistent with the remedial nature of unemployment compensation and the declared public policy that unemployment benefits are for those who are 'unemployed through no fault of their own.'" Houston, 645 N.W.2d at 150 (quoting Minn. Stat. ยง 268.03, subd. 1 (2000)). Here, relators are unemployed due to Cypress's decision to initiate a workforce reduction program and to accept relators' applications. Relators are not unemployed merely because they made Cypress's decisions easier by choosing to apply for that program.
We therefore reverse the decisions by the commissioner's representatives disqualifying relators from receiving benefits.
Reversed.
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.
|
|