In M. Conley Co. v. Anderson, 108 Ohio St.3d 252, 842 N.E.2d 1037, 2006 Ohio 792, the employees went on strike on the day the collective bargaining agreement expired. M. Conley Co., 108 Ohio St.3d at 253. Similar to the Baugh case, during the course of the strike, the employees received several letters from M. Conley. Id. The first letter informed the strikers that the company was in the process of hiring replacement workers. Id. In a second letter, the employees were notified that it was the intention of the company to retain replacement workers after the strike ended. Id. The final letter to the employees acted as a confirmation that all employees had been replaced. Id. The M. Conley Court noted that its factual scenario was "nearly identical" to Baugh and reaffirmed the Baugh holding as follows: The hiring of permanent replacement workers coupled with notice to striking workers that they have been replaced or that their positions have been permanently filled severs the employee relationship for purposes of R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a) and removes the disqualification to receive unemployment compensation benefits. M. Conley Co., 108 Ohio St.3d at 257. Moreover, the M. Conley Court, when it discussed factually distinguishable cases, implicitly approved the proposition that "hiring replacement workers does not by itself entitle striking workers to unemployment compensation." M. Conley Co., 108 Ohio St.3d at 255. The cases that the court in M. Conley found to be factually distinguishable were Moriarity v. Elyria United Methodist Home (9th Dist. 1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 502, 621 N.E.2d 576 and Hi-State Beverage Co. v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (10th Dist. 1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 633, 603 N.E.2d 274.