DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,239

NESTLE PURINA PETCARE
ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application February 19, 2003 the Retail, Wholesale and
Department Store Union (RWDSU), Local 125 requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on January 21, 2003,
and published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2003 (68 FR
8622).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.


The petition for the workers of Nestle Purina Petcare, St.
Joseph, Missouri was denied because the “contributed importantly”
group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended, was not met. The investigation revealed
that the declines in employment are related to a merger of Nestle
and Purina companies. Sales at the subject firm increased in
2001 compared with 2000, and also increased during January
through December 2002 compare to 2001. The investigation
revealed that company did not import cat or dog food in the
relevant period, nor did it shift production to a foreign
facility.
The union alleges that the subject firm shifted production
from the subject facility to two foreign facilities for the
purpose of producing like or directly competitive products. The
union further alleged that the subject firm trained employees
from a foreign facility at the subject firm for the purpose of
producing like or directly competitive products.
A company official was contacted in regard to these
allegations. The official stated that no production equipment had
been shipped from the subject facility to the foreign facilities,
and that, although foreign workers had been trained at the
subject facility, none of their foreign facilities produced like
or directly competitive products. The official further clarified
that the company had experienced no declines in sales and
production, but had transferred all production to U.S.
facilities.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 15th day of April, 2003

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick



EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance