Reduction in force/plant relocation

catherinetnc

Our company has a small branch in MA. Due to limitations with current building, we are moving location about 30 miles away. Due to business downturn, we are downsizing from 14 to 7 employees. Now, I understand any RIF is fraught with peril, and I think we've taken all the right steps: documented economic reasons for downsize, met with employees to keep them informed, asked for any voluntary resignations w/severance. We are going to offer the the most senior employees the positions in the new branch (as long as they relate to their current positions). All of the employees want to see severance packages.

Here's the question: Can we give the people to whom we're offering the new positions (or keeping in their old positions) a time limit to decide whether they are going to come to the new facility. ie: "here's the job we'd like you to take at the new plant, and here's a severance agreement for you to look at. We need to know whether you'll accept the new position within 7 days. If you decline to go to the new branch, you'll have 45 days from the actual date of termination to review the severance agreement."

Anything wrong with that scenario?

Thanks for any advice!

Catherine

twochr

I don't know anything about the laws in NC, but here is what happened in Texas when Texaco (Star Enterprise which owned all the service stations) went into an alliance with Shell. My husband worked at Texaco at the time for 30 years. When they decided to merge his department (Controllers) into Shell's, they worked up a severance package for all Controller employees. However, they planned to keep some of the employees and move them to the new location and into the new company (Equiva) that was being formed. The Execs that were being relocated were to offer positions to any of the employees (up to a limited number) they wanted to take with them. IF AN EMPLOYEE WAS OFFERED A POSITION AND DID NOT TAKE IT, then they would NOT get the severance package. In other words, they either took the new job or were left without anything. That was completely legal. My husband was offered a position, took it, and then a few years later took early retirement, getting his pension and retiree benefits and got the heck out of that place. He would not have been old enough to take the early retirement when the position was offered, so he had no choice. Hope this helps. You are being generous to your employees and very up front. I hope they appreciate you.

catherinetnc

Thanks for your information. That is really interesting!! As we all know, the best laid plans and all - I'll keep my fingers (and toes) crossed.

Catherine

KathiHR

An argument could be made that 7 days is not enough time to allow an employee to seek legal counsel before making their decision.

catherinetnc

I don't know that employees are required to seek legal counsel when they are offered a job. They still have 45 days from date of termination to consider the severance package. Also, a decision not to accept new position is not an automatic termination in this case - employee would still be employed until Jan, and would be offered the severance.

This gets really confusing.

My first thought when considering giving the employees a time limit was similar to yours - not that they'd need an opportunity to contact counsel - just that 7 days may not be adequate time to make a decision. So, I'm glad you've pointed that out. Do you think that an argument could be made that they had a right to seek counsel (as to whether to accept new job at new facility) and that 7 days was inadequate? Mass law is wacky - so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a law that the company had to provide legal counsel for the employees (just kidding - kinda)

Thanks-
Catherine

Don D

You're right. There minimimum requirements for people to review and consider documents legally before returning them, signed, where severance is concerned. There's no requirement as to a number of days for one to accept a transfer or reassignment. Yet. The government hasn't spotted that one yet.