Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date: 06/10/2002
Filed Date: 06/17/2003
Most Recent Update: 07/02/2003
Determination Date: 07/02/2003
Expiration Date: 04/23/2009
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-52,050
MERRILL CORPORATION
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Notice of Revised Determination
On Remand
On March 28, 2007, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) remanded Former Employees of Merrill Corporation
v. Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 03-00662, to
the Department of Labor (Department) for further investigation.
The Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply
for Worker Adjustment Assistance for workers and former workers
of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (subject firm) was
issued on July 2, 2003 and published in the Federal Register on
July 22, 2003 (68 FR 43373). The first negative determination
on remand was issued on April 2, 2004 and published in the
Federal Register on April 16, 2004 (69 FR 20645). The second
negative remand determination was issued on November 17, 2005
and published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2005 (70 FR
72857). In these determinations, the Department determined that
the workers’ electronic creations do not constitute “articles”
for purposes of the Trade Act of 1974 (the Act) and that the
shift of the workers’ functions to India was irrelevant.
On March 24, 2006, the Department revised its policy to
recognize tangible and intangible articles and reiterated its
policy that workers who produce an article incidental to the
provision of a service are not, for the purposes of the Act,
engaged in production.
The third negative determination on remand was issued on
August 24, 2006 and published in the Federal Register on
September 5, 2006 (71 FR 52346). The Department applied the
revised article policy to the case at hand and determined that
the workers produce electronic documents. The Department
concluded, however, that each document was unique, and there
were not articles “like or directly competitive” to any
document. The Department also determined that the workers’
application should be denied because the production of the
electronic documents was incidental to the provision of a
service.
In its March 28, 2007 opinion, the USCIT disagreed with the
Department’s policy and the third remand determination, and
remanded the matter to the Department.
During the immediate investigation, the Department
carefully reviewed the record and has determined that Merrill
Corporation has a distinct subdivision producing printed matter
sold to Merrill clients and another subdivision that provides
services. The Department further determines that the subject
worker group is affiliated with both subdivisions. Therefore,
the subject worker group made articles not only incidental to
the provision of a service.
The Department determines that production of the electronic
documents produced by the subject worker group shifted from the
subject firm to India and, following the shift, the subject firm
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
those produced by the subject worker group.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts, I determine that the
shift of electronic document production to India followed by
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject facility contributed to the total
or partial separation of a significant number or proportion of
workers at the subject facility. I also determine that the
electronic documents were not produced solely incidental to the
production of an article.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
"All workers of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota,
who became totally or partially separated from employment on
or after June 10, 2002, through two years from the issuance
of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade
Act of 1974.”
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of April 2007.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-52,050
MERRILL CORPORATION
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
TA-W-52,050A
MERRILL CORPORATION
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents
the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The investigation was initiated on June 17, 2003, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Merrill
Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (TA-W-52,050) and Merrill
Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts (TA-W-52,050A). The workers
at the subject facilities provide printing, photocopy and
document management services to the financial, legal and
corporate markets.
The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of
this firm or subdivision do not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The Department of Labor has
consistently determined that the performance of services does
not constitute production of an article, as required by Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974, and this determination has been
upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Workers at the firm or subdivision may be certified only if
their separation was caused importantly by a reduced demand for
their services from a parent firm, a firm otherwise related to
their firm by ownership, or a firm related by control.
Additionally, the reduction in demand for services must
originate at a production facility whose workers independently
meet the statutory criteria for certification, and the reduction
must directly relate to the product impacted by imports. These
conditions have not been met for workers at this facility.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of
Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (TA-W-52,050) and
Merrill Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts (TA-W-52,050A) are
denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 7th day of July, 2003.
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -