The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. is poised to decide whether Fluor Corp. workers terminated when construction on the $9-billion VC Summer nuclear power plant project was abandoned are owed 60 days’ pay and benefits—a ruling that would have “far-reaching and destabilizing effect” on the construction industry if it favors the payout, claimed the Associated Builders and Contractors in a case brief filed.

As part of a class action lawsuit filed in 2017, the workers argue that they are due reimbursement under the federal Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), which requires that those terminated get 60 days notice before being laid off. About 5,000 workers were terminated at the project on July 31, 2017, when it was abandoned.

现在，工人试图扭转上诉，由南卡罗来纳州联邦地方法院的一月份裁决不支持他们的论点。上诉法院法官于10月27日听到了新的口头辩论。

问题是是否应合法地将独立承包商视为所有者。在诉讼中，工人声称植物所有者Scana和承包商Westinghouse Electric Corp.和Fluor基本上都根据《警告法》作为单一雇主，并且故意未能根据法律要求给雇员至少60天的终止通知。

SCANA opted to end V.C. Summer construction, citing costs. In a major contractor shakeup earlier, Westinghouse had reached agreement with Fluor to shift to it primary responsibility for construction. Fluor had been a Westinghouse subcontractor since 2016 to manage construction and hire craft employees.

原告还辩称，荧光不应根据《警告法》逃避责任，因为关闭是“可预见的”。原告辩称，弗洛尔早在2017年4月就知道Scana正在“认真考虑”该项目。

承包商辩称，直到那年的7月31日，可用的信息表明工作将继续，该项目的快速关闭是前所未有的，并且该网站参与者预计该项目在工作现场有蜿蜒的时间。Fluor还坚持认为，它没有下令违反法律的“植物关闭”或“大规模裁员”。

承包商发言人以诉讼为由拒绝进一步评论。

下法院裁定对工人裁定

地方法院没有对单独的SCANA下令关闭该项目，也没有对Fluor提前警告，但原告声称该公用事业公司在2017年3月Westinghouse宣布破产后，该公用事业公司与分包商成为了单个雇主。与VC夏季工程，采购和建筑服务的Westinghouse一起，并担任项目经理。

法院指出，根据《警告法》，雇主“不得在60天的期限结束之前命令工厂关闭或大规模裁员”。, benefits and attorney’s fees.”

但其裁决还表示，美国工党部门要求两家公司在所有权和运营被视为单个所有者之前高度融合。法院认为，Scana对荧光和西屋的控制在很大程度上属于主要客户与雇用承包商或分包商的关系的预期范围。

下级法院说：“否则，可能会畸形的警告行为远远超出了国会的意图，并可能针对完全独立于承包商或分包商的主要客户开放一系列诉讼。”“虽然有一些证据表明de facto据称，控制权是在EPC协议的条款中存在的，它并不超过相反的大量证据，而远远无法验证原告对批发控制的主张。”

Workers claim that SCANA had financial control over Fluor that amounted to common ownership because SCANA owned the project and its jobs. But the court said workers did not prove “this innovative theory of financial ownership.”

但是下级法院说，Scana和Fluor是完全独立且无关的公司，其“过去和现在”的联系是核项目。它说，关闭“相当于荧光的不可预见的业务环境”，这使它警告了未能向其直接员工发送60天通知的责任。法院说：“ [法律]的简单语言根本不能防止所有工厂封闭或大规模裁员。”

In its district court brief in support of Fluor, ABC said no court has ever adopted workers’ novel theory of single-employer liability for unaffiliated, independent businesses in the construction industry, and that such a ruling would have a far-reaching effect never intended by Congress under the WARN Act.

“Congress and the Department of Labor have long understood that the construction industry is unique in its methods and contracting requirements, and the Act’s application to construction is severely limited by the ‘temporary project’ exemption,” ABC said, noting that contractors frequently hire workers for a particular building or project and fall under the exemption if workers understood at time of hire that their work was temporary.

“在建筑行业中，当然没有任何案例，只有所有者在完成之前就没有提前通知的所有者关闭其项目的事实，该事实被认为是对所有者和任何独立承包商/分包商对此类项目的单雇主责任施加了单雇主责任，新利18备用网址ABC争夺。

In a filing to the appellate court, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued that federal regulations say that a company that contracts for a service is not the employer of the independent contractor’s employees. It added that regulations also provide that a company’s “sudden and unexpected termination of a major contract” may be an unforeseeable business circumstance that excuses the employer from providing 60 days’ advance notice because the “action is outside the employer’s control.”