that occurs when positions are eliminated” and categorizes the State’s argument as “akin to the expression of a glass being half-empty or half-full.” PERB points out that the proposal does not require employers to retain staff generally or to refrain from reducing employees not in the bargaining unit. We conclude a staff reduction occurs only when an employee leaves the State payroll, not merely when a particular job position is eliminated. As the Kentucky Supreme Court recently observed, “no one could reasonably argue that a job classification must last forever.” Webb v. Meyer, 406 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Ky.2013). The Kentucky Supreme Court further recognized “[t]here is a significant distinction between being transferred within one’s employment and not having employment at all.” Id. (<HOLDING>). We agree and hold a “staff reduction” under
recognizing that the words without prejudice when used in an order or decree generally indicate that there has been no resolution of the controversy on its merits and leaves the issues in litigation open to another suit as if no action had ever been brought holding that the requisite relationship between stepparent and stepchildren existed because there had been no legal divorce or separation and that the appropriate inquiry  in cases where there has been a legal separation or where the marriage has been terminated by divorce or death is whether a family relationship has continued to exist as a matter of fact between the stepparent and stepchild holding if there has been no termination of employment there has been no layoff or reduction in force holding that review is de novo where there has been no adjudication on the merits in state court holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order