In Baugh v. United Tel. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 419, 377 N.E.2d 766, the Ohio Supreme Court articulated a new test for determining when, during the course of a bona fide labor dispute, the employer terminated the employee-employer relationship. In Baugh, after the union employees commenced an economic strike, they were informed by letter that if they did not return to work by a specified date, they would be permanently replaced. Baugh, 54 Ohio St.2d at 420. Shortly after the deadline to return to work passed, each striking employee received a letter notifying them of their permanent replacement. Id. In analyzing the Baugh scenario, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that the disqualification contained in R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a) applied only if unemployment was due to a labor dispute. The Court found the phrase "due to" to mean "caused by," not "merely occurring during the course of." Baugh, 54 Ohio St.2d at 422. Therefore, the fact that unemployment began during the course of a labor dispute was not an ultimate bar to ever receiving unemployment compensation. In formulating a test for when unemployment due to a labor dispute, which is not compensable, turned into something where unemployment benefits could be awarded, the court focused on when the employer acted to sever the employment relationship. The court found as follows: Accordingly, we find that the General Assembly did not intend that the statutory disqualification from unemployment compensation benefits contained in R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a) be applicable if, during the course of a bona fide labor dispute, the employer terminated the employee status and thereby caused the unemployment. In such an instance, although the labor dispute directly caused the initial unemployment, the statutory disqualification terminated with the severance of the employee status. At that moment in time the direct cause of the unemployment became the act of the employer. From then on the employer's action and not the labor dispute was the proximate cause of unemployment. Thus, pivotal to the resolution of the instant cause is a determination of whether the employer terminated the appellants' status as employees. Baugh, 54 Ohio St.2d at 424. In determining whether the employer, in Baugh, terminated the employees, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded as follows: "since the employer's action of permanent replacement prevented any volition on the part of the workers to return to work and since it severed the labor dispute as the cause of unemployment, the statutory disqualification provision of R.C. 4141.29 is inapplicable to bar appellants' right to receive unemployment compensation benefits." Baugh, 54 Ohio St.2d at 425. Accordingly, in Baugh, the Supreme Court found the following facts to be determinative of the question: In the instant causes, we are confronted with the affirmative action of the employer in notifying the appellants pursuant to a letter, dated May 25, 1972, not only that their union representatives had been informed of the employer's intention to hire permanent replacements, but further that, if each employee did not report to work on June 1, the immediate hiring of permanent replacements would commence and, if at the end of the strike a replacement occupied the employee's former job, the employee had no job. A second letter was sent to the employees shortly after the June 1 deadline, informing them that their positions had been filled. Baugh, 54 Ohio St.2d at 425. Based on these facts, the Supreme Court determined that "the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that the employer's severance of the employee status was the proximate cause of appellants' unemployment." Id.