for Webmasters « back to results for ""
Below is a cache of http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991581.P.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
INTERNATIONAL UNION; UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 31;
RICHARD EDDY; GEORGE THOMAS ICE;
DELAS A. STUZEN,
No. 99-1581
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MARTINKA COAL COMPANY; EASTERN
ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CA-96-156-1)
Argued: December 2, 1999
Decided: February 4, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Motz and Senior Judge Butzner joined.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Bryan Rex Cokeley, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charles-
ton, West Virginia, for Appellants. Judith Ellen Rivlin, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Charles D. Morrison, Vanessa L. Goddard, STEPTOE
& JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellants. Charles F.
Donnelly, DONNELLY, CARBONE & KETTLER, P.L.L.C.,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
In connection with their planned closing of a coal mine on Decem-
ber 5, 1995, Martinka Coal Company and Eastern Associated Coal
Corporation gave notice on October 2, 1995, to more than 300
employees at the mine site that 89 employees would be laid off the
next day and that the remaining employees would be laid off when
the mine was closed in December. Three of the 89 employees laid off
on October 3, 1995, and the union, as representative of the employ-
ees, commenced this action, contending that the 89 employees did not
receive 60 days' notice of their layoff as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), 29
U.S.C. §§ 2101 et seq. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment, awarding the 89 employees damages. Reject-
ing the employer's interpretation of the WARN Act, which would
require notice only to employees laid off within a 30-day window sur-
rounding the mine's closing, we affirm.
I
Before October 1995, Martinka Coal Company and Eastern Asso-
ciated Coal Corporation (collectively herein "Martinka")1 employed
_________________________________________________________________
1 The appellants Eastern Associated Coal Corporation and Martinka
Coal Company are sister corporations, both wholly-owned subsidiaries
of Coal Properties Corporation. During the period relevant to this appeal,
the companies were parties to a management agreement under which
Eastern provided management and administrative assistance related to
Martinka's business and properties. The parties have agreed that, for the
limited purpose of this litigation, the actions or inactions of agents and
employees of Eastern can be imputed to and considered the actions or
inactions of Martinka.
2 over 300 employees at an underground coal mine near Fairmont,
West Virginia, known as the Tygart River Mine. The mine consisted
of a preparation facility and two underground mining areas.
In early August 1995, a major roof fall occurred in one of the
mine's underground areas, prompting Martinka, after evaluating the
economic viability of the mine, to decide to suspend all operations at
the mine. Martinka prepared an undated "Action Plan for the Suspen-
sion of Operations," which laid out a schedule for (1) notifying cus-
tomers and employees of the mine closure, (2) announcing the
immediate layoff of 89 employees, and (3) completing remaining
underground and surface work at the mine. On October 2, 1995, Mar-
tinka notified the employees at the mine site and the United Mine-
workers of America (the "Union"), the employees' bargaining
representative, that it would close the mine over a two-week period
beginning December 5, 1995, resulting in the permanent loss of
employment for the mine's employees. Also on October 2, Martinka
first announced to its employees that it would lay off 89 employees
the following day.
As announced, 89 employees were laid off on October 3, 1995, and
coal extraction at the mine ceased on October 16. The remaining
employees worked for approximately two more months on tasks such
as recovering the equipment from the two underground areas and
treating mine waste water. The majority of these employees were laid
off when the mine closed completely in December 1995.
The Union and 3 of the 89 employees who were laid off on Octo-
ber 3, 1995, commenced this action against Martinka, alleging that
Martinka failed to give 60 days' notice to the 89 employees laid off
on October 3, 1995, before terminating their employment as a conse-
quence of the mine closure, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a), and
demanding damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104. The district court
bifurcated the liability and damages portions of the case. On cross-
motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the WARN
Act entitled the 89 employees to 60 days' notice before they were laid
off, the district court ruled in favor of the employees and against Mar-
tinka. After a bench trial on damages, the court awarded the employ-
ees $720,595 in the aggregate plus interest, totaling $857,454.95.
3 Martinka now appeals, challenging only the district court's ruling
on the company's liability under the WARN Act.
II
We are presented with the narrow but novel question of whether
Martinka was required, under the WARN Act, to give the 89 employ-
ees laid off on October 3, 1995, 60 days' notice of their layoff.
Because resolution of this issue turns on statutory construction, we
review the district court's opinion de novo. See United States v.
Linney, 134 F.3d 274, 282 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 143
(1998).
The facts necessary for our decision are not in dispute. As a result
of the roof collapse at its Tygart River Mine, Martinka determined to
close the facility in December 1995. More than 60 days before then
-- on October 2, 1995 -- it gave the more than 300 employees at that
facility notice of the plant closing. At the same time and as part of its
determination to close the plant, Martinka also notified 89 of the
employees that they would be laid off the next day, October 3, 1995.
These employees contend that, even though they were given notice of
the mine's closing 60 days before the shutdown, they were entitled,
under the WARN Act, to 60 days' notice before their layoffs.
The parties agree that Martinka is an "employer" as defined in the
WARN Act, see 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(1), and that the closing of the
Tygart River facility constituted a "plant closing," see 29 U.S.C.
§ 2101(a)(2).
The operative provision of the WARN Act states:
An employer shall not order a plant closing . . . until the end
of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice
of such an order . . . to each representative of the affected
employees as of the time of the notice or, if there is no such
representative at that time, to each affected employee.
29 U.S.C. § 2102(a). The purpose of the Act, as articulated by
regulation,2 is to provide
_________________________________________________________________
2 The WARN Act specifically directs the Department of Labor to "pre-
scribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out [the Act]." 29
4 protection to workers, their families and communities by
requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days
in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs . . . provid[-
ing] workers and their families some transition time to
adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and
obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill train-
ing or retraining that will allow these workers to success-
fully compete in the job market.
20 C.F.R. § 639.1(a). Thus, while it is clear that the intent of the
WARN Act would have all affected employees given 60 days' notice
before their layoffs to permit them to arrange their employment
affairs, the specific language of the Act is inartful, if not confusing.
Rather than lin