 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Employees of Intalco Aluminum Corp. v. Employment Security Dep't of the State of Washington6/13/2005
work terminating the employees who elected voluntary separation. This is incorrect. The clerical paperwork is not the final action contemplated by the regulation. As noted by Division Two, 'Intalco had no control over who participated in the voluntary severance programs.' Under Washington law, an offer is accepted and becomes contractually binding by the actions of a person signing an agreement presented as an offer. Here, Intalco offered the voluntary programs to every hourly employee, and retained no control over who elected to participate. Once Intalco's offer was formally accepted, the deal was binding on Intalco. Under these circumstances, the employees who accepted the severance package took the final action in the separation process.
Good Cause to Quit
An employee who quits voluntarily is eligible for benefits if the separation was based upon good cause. The commissioner found the employees' separations were due to concerns regarding the long term prospects of employment with Intalco, which did not constitute good cause. This too was correct.
To have good cause for severing employment so as to be eligible for benefits, an employee must leave work primarily because of work-connected factors of such compelling nature as to cause a reasonably prudent person to leave, after exhausting all reasonable, non-futile alternatives. The commissioner must consider only work-related factors brought about by the employer. '{G}ood cause must be based upon existing facts as contrasted to conjecture, and that reasons for leaving employment must be significant.' This court has consistently held that the mere possibility of a future layoff does not constitute good cause.
The employees nonetheless assert that good cause existed because 'the atmosphere created by Intalco made the claimants fear for their jobs and their livelihoods.' They point to the power usage curtailment agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration as creating a reasonable apprehension of future layoffs. But the purpose of that agreement was to preserve jobs: 'Alcoa will not involuntarily terminate employees due to the curtailment, but may design and offer a voluntary program for employee separation.' The fact that the agreement acknowledged that 'involuntary termination may be necessary' does not, standing alone, create an atmosphere of inevitable layoffs. Further, the agreement with the union required Intalco to pay all remaining hourly employees (including all those involved here) their base pay for full time work for the two-year curtailment period.
The employees assert that a reduction in force 'was absolutely necessary' and that 'wide-scale lay-offs . . . would most certainly have ensued.' These assertions are unsupported by the record. No layoffs occurred at Intalco as a result of the two year curtailment except for the 24 least senior employees originally announced. Whether this number might have been different had fewer employees accepted voluntary separation packages is simple conjecture, which is not enough to constitute good cause.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the Employment Security Act to lighten the burden on persons unemployed through no fault of their own is not furthered by providing unemployment benefits where an employee participates in a voluntary severance program under no threat of involuntary termination. The decision of the superior court is reversed, and the Department's denial of benefits is reinstated.
Page 1 2 3 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|