53. You are international human resources consultant retained by Pacific Paper Products, a U.b. corporation headquartered in Seattle. PPP recently downsized its operations located in Germany, which resulted in significant layoffs. The basis of this decision was the inability of the German plants to generate sufficient revenues. Although marginally profitable, PPP concluded that it would be fiscally prudent to downsize the facilities. PPP provided ten days written notice to their employees at these facilities prior to their termination. In response, the employees have submitted claims for wrongful discharge. You have been retained to advise PPP's board of directors on the validity of these claims. Did PPP's closure of the plant violate German law? Are the former employees' claims for wrongful discharge valid? Why or why not? ANSWER: The workers' claims are valid. Under the German Works Constitution Act, PPP must fully inform the works council for its German plant within "due time" of any changes that might result in "substantial disadvantages for employees" and consult with it on such proposals. In the course of this consultation, PPP must solicit the works council's approval of the method for terminating workers. If PPP and the works council could not reach an agreement, then they must appear before an arbitration committee. In addition, PPP failed to notify the Federal Employment Institute of the layoffs as required by German law