DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,335

GENERAL ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS
DRIVES & CONTROLS, INC.
SALEM, VIRGINIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of June 9, 2003, a petitioner 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 applicable to workers of
General Electric Industrial Systems, Drives and Controls, Inc.,
Salem, Virginia was signed on April 24, 2003, and published in
the Federal Register on May 9, 2003 (68 FR 25060).
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 was filed on behalf of workers at General
Electric Industrial Systems, Drives and Controls, Inc., Salem,
Virginia engaged in activities related to “editing and
formatting” of customer instruction manuals. The petition was
denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The petitioner alleges that the Department did not correctly
assess the worker group functions, that in addition to editing
and formatting, workers also “create, develop and publish”
customer instruction manuals. The petitioner emphasizes that the
operating instructions contained in these manuals are essential
to the operation of the products they accompany in the retail
market and is unclear as to why “publications” should not be
considered “articles” as described in Section 222 of the Trade
Act.
Review of the initial investigation reveals that a company
official stated that content writing and editing was performed at
the subject facility, and that this work function was shifted to
a foreign GE affiliate. However, the writing performed is sent
back to the Salem, Virginia facility via electronic copy in order
to be printed and published. Informational material that is
electronically transmitted is not considered production within
the context of TAA eligibility requirements, so there are no
imports of products in this instance. Further, as the manual does
not become a product until it is printed, petitioning workers did
not produce an “article” within the meaning of the Trade Act of
1974.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified
for TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a
reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling
firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article and who are
currently under certification for TAA.
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 13th day of June, 2003.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
___________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance