that the plain terms of the plan indicate that a “lack of work” may arise from corporate reorganization or something analogous, as perhaps is the case for those ANSI employees who were not offered employment with Cargill. However, there is no lack of work as to these plaintiffs under any common sense understanding of the phrase. B. Economic Reduction in the Workforce The plain meaning of “economic reduction in the workforce” in this particular context does not encompass a transfer of position to a successor corporation where the employees faced no threat of unemployment. The phrase “reduction in workforce” is most commonly understood to cover situations in which a poor economic outlook for an employer forces layoffs. See Lesman v. Ransburg Corp., 719 F.Supp. 619, 621 (W.D.Mich.1989) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 911 F.2d 732 (6th Cir.1990); Allen v.
holding that severance pay received postseparation was not marital property as the condition to receive the pay was related to the sale of the corporation not to husbands work during his marriage holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee holding that a plan providing severance pay for reduction in work force simply did not contemplate the effect of a sale of a business on the availability of severance pay holding calculating severance benefits based upon age years of service and pay required no discretion holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract