IBM is fighting the state on releasing the number of employees affected by its recent round of layoffs.
The company on Monday supplied the list of laid-off workers to the Department of Labor, as requested by the state, but claims that a public release of the tally would cause the company “competitive harm.”
Friday marked the last day on the job for the majority of displaced workers from IBM’s Essex Junction plant. Based on attendance at the unemployment division’s Rapid Response sessions, it is estimated that at least 300 people were let go from the computer chip manufacturing plant.
Gov. Peter Shumlin on Thursday acknowledged that, as one of Vermont’s largest employers, IBM is very important to the state.
“But I wish (they) would just peel the Band-Aid off and give us the numbers,” he said. “I just don’t see that it’s in anyone’s best interest to keep secrets.”
In fact, IBM has given the state the numbers. The company has just requested that state officials keep them to themselves.
Adhering to the state’s Employment Security Board regulations, IBM confirmed within 24 hours of the end of Friday’s workday that a “mass separation” had taken effect. (In this case, the threshold that defines a mass separation is just 25 or more employees losing their jobs.)
Monday evening, the technology company complied with Dept. of Labor Commissioner Annie Noonan’s request for details on the employees who were let go. But the list was accompanied by an assertion that the state could not release even the total number to the public.
“It claims that release of the information will cause competitive harm to IBM, as well as harm to the individual employees,” according to a Labor Department news release. IBM cited trade secret and competitive business exemptions from the state’s Public Records Act.
Noonan disagrees with that interpretation.
But, she said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, “The department is taking the time to review and examine any and all exemptions from the public record law.” She said she had given IBM until noon Thursday “to present their arguments and legal theories” to support its claim.
The Labor Department does not dispute that information that could be used to identify individual former employees should be exempt from disclosure.
“Both the (Shumlin) administration and the (Labor) Department would like to see IBM publicly disclose the final tally,” Noonan said. “It would assist in local response to the separation,” she added.
Shumlin declined to speculate on the specifics of any actions the state or company may take if they come to an impasse over disclosure. He did acknowledge, however, that if the state believes that the Public Records Act does not exempt disclosure of the layoff number, then officials would be bound to release the information.
History shows that it is not uncommon for Vermont employers to announce in advance the number of layoffs planned for their businesses.
IBM had previously made the case that withholding the number of layoffs until after they were finalized was a matter of accuracy: Some workers were still eligible for reassignment within the company.
With the mass separation official, that reasoning has become moot. Now, IBM has given the tally to the Labor Department, but claims the state cannot release it.
“Given earlier conversations with IBM, I did not anticipate that IBM would not want to share the final tally once the layoffs were determined,” Noonan said.
IBM could not be immediately reached for comment.
Regardless of the outcome of the disclosure disagreement, Noonan said her department would be in further communication with IBM to confirm whether the list they provided Monday evening represents all employees let go since the layoff was announced June 12, or if it only includes those whose employment ceased last Friday.
Regarding the rules governing disclosure of pending layoffs, Noonan said the department and administration are looking together at applicable statutes and regulations to see if any changes are necessary.
This article was updated at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 17, 2013, by Hilary Niles, to include recent comments from Gov. Shumlin.
