IBM has provided the state with details about the number of jobs cut at its Essex Junction plant, but it wants the state to keep the information from the public.
The company claims that releasing the number could harm it.
The number of employees given pink slips in Essex Junction a month ago has been the subject of much speculation for weeks.
Under Vermont law IBM is required to inform the state of mass layoffs and respond to requests for additional information.
Labor Commissioner Annie Noonan says that last week she asked the company to provide her department with the names of those who lost their jobs, so unemployment claims could be processed quickly. Monday the company complied.
While the department keeps the names confidential it typically makes public the number of jobs lost in big layoffs.
But IBM wants to prevent the state from releasing that number. Noonan says the company argues that the number constitutes “sensitive and confidential commercial information.”
“They also said the release would cause IBM competitive harm and that they cited the Vermont Public Records Act exemption regarding trade secrets and competitive business information,” Noonan explained.
She says the state isn’t convinced the law applies to the job cuts number and citing requests to make the figure public, the department is telling IBM it needs to make a stronger case for withholding it.
“We’ve asked IBM to provide us with any additional legal justification that they feel is appropriate for us to consider, or any other information that they wish to provide to us to support a claim of confidentiality and we’ve asked them to provide that analysis to us by Thursday afternoon,” says Noonan.
After hearing from IBM, the state will determine whether or not to keep the information confidential.
She says based on a count of the IBM employees who have contacted the department in recent weeks, the number of people laid off is at least 325.
IBM is scheduled to release its second quarter earnings report late Wednesday. It was after a disappointing first quarter, that the company signaled that layoffs were imminent.