U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 23— WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION

29 U.S.C. § 2103

Exemptions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall not apply to a plant closing or mass layoff if—(1) the closing is of a temporary facility or the closing or 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 the project or undertaking; or(2) the closing or layoff constitutes a strike or constitutes a lockout not intended to evade the requirements of this chapter. Nothing in this chapter shall require an employer to serve written notice pursuant to section 2102(a) of this title 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.]: Provided, That nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to validate or invalidate any judicial or administrative ruling relating to the hiring of permanent replacements for economic strikers under the National Labor Relations Act.(Pub. L. 100–379, § 4, Aug. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 892.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Labor Relations Act, referred to in par. (2), is act July 5, 1935, ch. 372, 49 Stat. 452, which is classified generally to subchapter II (§ 151 et seq.) of chapter 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 167 of this title and Tables.

Effective Date

Section effective 6 months after Aug. 4, 1988, see section 11 of Pub. L. 100–379, set out as a note under section 2101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Washington v. Aircap Indus. Corp., 831 F. Supp. 1292 (D.S.C. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington v. Aircap Indus. Corp., 831 F. Supp. 1292 (D.S.C. 1993). · cites it 8× “Defendant apparently seeks protection under the exceptions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 2103 . In framing this issue, this court must bear in mind that exceptions from remedial acts are to be construed narrowly, Olsen v.”
Marques v. Telles Ranch, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 1438 (N.D. Cal. 1994). · cites it 2× “However, Defendants claim that the case at bar falls under the exemption set out in 29 U.S.C. § 2103 , which states: [t]his chapter shall not apply to a plant closing or mass layoff if — (1) the closing is of a temporary facility or the closing or layoff is the result of the…”
Local 2-1971 of Pace Int'l Union v. Cooper, 364 F. Supp. 2d 546 (W.D.N.C. 2005). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2103 (2). Both Steven Smith and Webb acknowledged that one reason for the 14-day notice terminating the Memorandum of Understanding was to avoid complying with the WARN Act.”
United Mine Workers v. Florence Mining Co., 855 F. Supp. 1466 (W.D. Pa. 1994). · cites it 2× “First, they contend that the WARN Act is inapplicable to the closure of the Heshbon Mine and the Coal Preparation Facility because 29 U.S.C. § 2103 (1) exempts plant closings that are the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking.”
Teamsters Nat'l Freight Indus. Negotiating Comm. Ex Rel. Howe v. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 1021 (W.D. Mo. 1996). · cites it 2× “Defendant CTL claims that it was exempt from the notice requirement because the closing related to or was caused by a strike, 29 U.S.C. § 2103 , and because the closing falls within the business circumstance exception, 29 U.”
Kildea v. Electro Wire Prods., Inc., 792 F. Supp. 1046 (E.D. Mich. 1992). · cites it 4× “” For example, employees in a temporary facility, 29 U.S.C. § 2103 (1), and employees involved in a strike or lockout, 29 U.”
Steven Scott Kildea v. Electro-Wire Prods., Inc., 144 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 1998). “Thus, submits Electro-Wire, it is clear that the definition of “employee” is broader than the definition of “affected employee.” The Court does not agree.”
Bentley v. Arlee Home Fashions, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 65 (E.D. Ark. 1994). “If the employer does not fall within one of the exemptions provided in 29 U.S.C. § 2103 and fails to provide the 60 days written notice, the employer is subject to civil action.”
United Mine Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Peabody Coal Co., 38 F.3d 850 (6th Cir. 1994). “29 U.S.C. § 2103 (2). While not specifically referencing the NLRA, WARN accommodates collectively bargained contract provisions by specifying that the WARN notice period “shall run concurrently with any period of notification required by contract.”
Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Local 7-629, Afl-Cio v. Rmi Titanium Co., 199 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2000). “3 (c)(2), Workers, other than part time workers, who are exempt from notice under section 4 of WARN [ 29 U.S.C. § 2103 (1) ] are nonetheless counted as employees for purposes of determining coverage as a .”
Johnson v. TeleSpectrum Worldwide, Inc., 61 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Del. 1999). “Absent authority to the contrary, we assume that the employer also bears the burden of proof with respect to the ‘strike exemption’ [ 29 U.S.C. § 2103 (1)].”). This Court makes the same assumption regarding the offer to transfer exclusion.”
Kinney v. Pub. Consulting Grp., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023). · cites it 3× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2103 (1); see Kinney Resp. Opp’n at 5.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.