What's happening
This bill removes certain exceptions to employer notice requirements for plant closings under New York labor law.
Why it matters
Narrows the circumstances under which employers can avoid giving advance notice to workers about plant closings. , meaning fewer companies will be able to close facilities without warning employees.
Removes the exception that allowed employers to skip notice if they were actively seeking new capital or business. , closing a loophole that sometimes let companies withhold notice by claiming last-minute efforts to save the business.
Eliminates the “unforeseeable business circumstances” exception for notice. , so employers can no longer claim they didn’t see the need for notice coming, making the law stricter and more predictable for workers.
Increases job security and planning ability for employees. , as more workers will reliably receive advance warning of closures or mass layoffs, allowing them more time to prepare for job loss and seek new opportunities.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Tighten Plant Closing Notices
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to labor
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
7345
IN SENATE
January 21, 2020
Introduced by Sen. MAYER -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Labor
AN ACT to amend the labor law, in relation to employer notice requirements for the closing of a plant
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 860-c of the labor law, as added by chapter 475 of the laws of 2008, is amended to read as follows:
1. In the case of a plant closing, an employer is not required to comply with the notice requirement in subdivision one of section eight hundred sixty-b of this article if:
(a)[(i) at the time the notice would have been required, the employer was actively seeking capital or business; and
(ii) the capital or business sought, if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the relocation or termination; and
(iii) the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice required by subdivision one of section eight hundred sixty-b of this article would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business;
(b) the need for a notice was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the notice would have been required;
(c)] the plant closing is of a temporary facility or the plant closing or mass layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking, and the affected employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was limited to the duration of the facility or project or undertaking;
[(d)] (b) the plant closing or mass layoff is due to any form of natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, or drought; or
[(e)] (c) the closing or mass layoff constitutes a strike or constitutes a lockout not intended to evade the requirements of this article. Nothing in this article shall require an employer to serve written notice when permanently replacing a person who is deemed to be an economic striker under the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). Nothing in this article shall be deemed to validate or invali-
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD14818-01-0
S. 7345 2
date any judicial or administrative ruling relating to the hiring of permanent replacements for economic strikers under the National Labor Relations Act.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the labor law, in relation to employer notice require- ments for the closing of a plant
Summary of provisions
Section 1 amends subdivision 1 of section 860-c of the labor law to eliminate two exceptions to the notice requirements under the WARN Act: (1) situations in which an employer is actively seeking capital, and (2) lack of foreseeability.
Section 2 sets the effective date.
Justification
On Christmas Eve of 2019, the Doral Arrowwood Resort in the Village of Rye Brook informed its approximately 275 employees that it would be shutting down on January 12,2020, just 19 days later. The New York State WARN Act requires 90 days' notice when more than 50 employees are affected in such situations. These employees, many of whom worked for the hotel for many years, were faced with the prospect of being unem- ployed in short order, and financially at risk. In situations in which notice is late or absent, employers are liable for up to 60 days of back pay and benefits. However, under current law, noncompliance and the employer's duty to pay them is waived if the employer can prove that either (1) the employer was actively seeking capital that, if obtained, would have allowed the employer to avoid the mass layoff and the employ- er believed giving notice to employees would have precluded the employer from obtaining such capital, or (2) the need for notice was not reason- ably foreseeable at the time the notice was required.
Because the WARN Act also requires notice to be given to the Department of Labor and certain other entities, these exceptions can allow for reduced time for the Department to react to a WARN situation.
The fact that an employer was actively seeking funding or that the employment loss requiring WARN Act notice was unforeseeable should not, in either case, allow them to escape compliance with the WARN Act. This bill preserves other existing exceptions for temporary projects, natural disasters, and lockouts, but ensures that employers cannot hide behind vague business arguments to avoid paying their employees or to relieve them from providing sufficient notice to their employees, the Department of Labor, and other required notice recipients.
Prior legislative history
New bill
Fiscal implications
None
Effective date
Immediately
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.