DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,009

ROBERT BOSCH TOOL CORPORATION
(FORMERLY THE VERMONT AMERICAN CORPORATION)
ENGINEERING CENTER
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By a letter postmarked July 17, 2003, petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former
workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on May 28, 2003
and published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2003 (68 FR
36845).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Robert Bosch
Tool Corporation, Engineering Center, Louisville, Kentucky,
engaged in the production of one-of-a-kind machinery utilized at
other affiliated company facilities, was denied because the
"contributed importantly" or shift in production group
eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974
were not met. Increased imports did not contribute importantly to
worker separations at the subject plant and the company did not
shift production to a foreign source.
The petitioners produced machinery which is used to
manufacture power tools. They allege that they should be
certified eligible for TAA because manufacturing divisions of
Robert Bosch have shifted production of power tools and/or power
tool components to foreign countries.
Despite their indication that they are “secondary workers”,
it is not clear from the wording of the reconsideration request
whether the petitioners are appealing on the basis of primary or
secondary impact.
Given that the initial investigation revealed that there was
no import impact or shift of production of the subject firm
product (machines for producing power tools) to a foreign source,
the petitioning worker group would have to supply a TAA certified
affiliated facility in order to be eligible for certification
under primary impact. The initial investigation revealed that,
although there are three Robert Bosch Corporation facilities that
are under active TAA certification, none of these facilities were
supplied by the subject facility.
In order to be eligible for TAA certification under
secondary impact, the petitioning worker group must either supply
a component part of a product that is the basis of a TAA
certification for a customer firm (upstream supplier), or
assemble or finish a product that is the basis of TAA
certification for a customer firm (downstream producer). As the
petitioners produce a machine that produces power tool
components, they are neither an upstream supplier nor a
downstream producer of power tool components.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 12th day of August, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance