[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 20, Volume 3]
[Revised as of April 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 20CFR639.9]

[Page 361-362]
 
                      TITLE 20--EMPLOYEES' BENEFITS
 
 CHAPTER V--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 639--WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 639.9  When may notice be given less than 60 days in advance?

    Section 3(b) of WARN sets forth three conditions under which the 
notification period may be reduced to less than 60 days. The employer 
bears the burden of proof that conditions for the exceptions have been 
met. If one of the exceptions is applicable, the employer must give as 
much notice as is practicable to the union, non-represented employees, 
the State dislocated worker unit, and the unit of local government and 
this may, in some circumstances, be notice after the fact. The employer 
must, at the time notice actually is given, provide a brief statement of 
the reason for reducing the notice period, in addition to the other 
elements set out in Sec. 639.7.
    (a) The exception under section 3(b)(1) of WARN, termed ``faltering 
company'', applies to plant closings but not to mass layoffs and should 
be narrowly construed. To qualify for reduced notice under this 
exception:
    (1) An employer must have been actively seeking capital or business 
at the time that 60-day notice would have been required. That is, the 
employer must have been seeking financing or refinancing through the 
arrangement of loans, the issuance of stocks, bonds, or other methods of 
internally generated financing; or the employer must have been seeking 
additional money, credit, or business through any other commercially 
reasonable method. The employer must be able to identify specific 
actions taken to obtain capital or business.

[[Page 362]]

    (2) There must have been a realistic opportunity to obtain the 
financing or business sought.
    (3) The financing or business sought must have been sufficient, if 
obtained, to have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the 
shutdown. The employer must be able to objectively demonstrate that the 
amount of capital or the volume of new business sought would have 
enabled the employer to keep the facility, operating unit, or site open 
for a reasonable period of time.
    (4) The employer reasonably and in good faith must have believed 
that giving the required notice would have precluded the employer from 
obtaining the needed capital or business. The employer must be able to 
objectively demonstrate that it reasonably thought that a potential 
customer or source of financing would have been unwilling to provide the 
new business or capital if notice were given, that is, if the employees, 
customers, or the public were aware that the facility, operating unit, 
or site might have to close. This condition may be satisfied if the 
employer can show that the financing or business source would not choose 
to do business with a troubled company or with a company whose workforce 
would be looking for other jobs. The actions of an employer relying on 
the ``faltering company'' exception will be viewed in a company-wide 
context. Thus, a company with access to capital markets or with cash 
reserves may not avail itself of this exception by looking solely at the 
financial condition of the facility, operating unit, or site to be 
closed.
    (b) The ``unforeseeable business circumstances'' exception under 
section 3(b)(2)(A) of WARN applies to plant closings and mass layoffs 
caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at 
the time that 60-day notice would have been required.
    (1) An important indicator of a business circumstance that is not 
reasonably foreseeable is that the circumstance is caused by some 
sudden, dramatic, and unexpected action or condition outside the 
employer's control. A principal client's sudden and unexpected 
termination of a major contract with the employer, a strike at a major 
supplier of the employer, and an unanticipated and dramatic major 
economic downturn might each be considered a business circumstance that 
is not reasonably foreseeable. A government ordered closing of an 
employment site that occurs without prior notice also may be an 
unforeseeable business circumstance.
    (2) The test for determining when business circumstances are not 
reasonably foreseeable focuses on an employer's business judgment. The 
employer must exercise such commercially reasonable business judgment as 
would a similarly situated employer in predicting the demands of its 
particular market. The employer is not required, however, to accurately 
predict general economic conditions that also may affect demand for its 
products or services.
    (c) The ``natural disaster'' exception in section 3(b)(2)(B) of WARN 
applies to plant closings and mass layoffs due to any form of a natural 
disaster.
    (1) Floods, earthquakes, droughts, storms, tidal waves or tsunamis 
and similar effects of nature are natural disasters under this 
provision.
    (2) To qualify for this exception, an employer must be able to 
demonstrate that its plant closing or mass layoff is a direct result of 
a natural disaster.
    (3) While a disaster may preclude full or any advance notice, such 
notice as is practicable, containing as much of the information required 
in Sec. 639.7 as is available in the circumstances of the disaster still 
must be given, whether in advance or after the fact of an employment 
loss caused by a natural disaster.
    (4) Where a plant closing or mass layoff occurs as an indirect 
result of a natural disaster, the exception does not apply but the 
``unforeseeable business circumstance'' exception described in paragraph 
(b) of this section may be applicable.