Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 04/28/2004
Most Recent Update: 06/25/2004
Determination Date: 06/25/2004
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-54,796
VENTURE INDUSTRIES
LANCASTER OHIO PLNAT
LANCASTER, OHIO
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated July 19, 2004, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding the eligibility for workers of Venture
Industries to apply for trade adjustment assistance. The denial
notice applicable to workers of the subject firm located
Lancaster, Ohio, was signed on June 25, 2004, and was published
in the Federal Register on August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46574).
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.
In the request for reconsideration of the petition denial,
the petitioner claims that worker separations were “due to the
circumstances of the Venture Pegaform plant in Germany being in
financial trouble, profits from the American plants were used to
help get this facility back to where it could turn a profit,
therefore leaving the American Venture Plants in financial
trouble.” The petitioner adds that the money used for the
Venture Pegaform plant in Germany could have kept the Lancaster,
Ohio plant open.
In order for the workers of the subject firm to be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance, the worker
group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, must be met.
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have
become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely;
(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles
produced by such firm or subdivision have increased; and
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and
to the decline in the sales or production of such firm or
subdivision; or
(B)(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or
subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement
with the United States;
(II) the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production
of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
(III) there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of
articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which
are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
The worker group eligibility requirements described above
does not contain a provision for a shift of profits from a U.S.
firm to a firm in a foreign country.
The workers of Venture Industries, Lancaster Ohio Plant,
Lancaster, Ohio, produced sheet/fiberglass molding compound for
exterior automotive parts. The Department’s initial
investigation determined that during the relevant period (from
2002 through April 2004) there were no imports by the firm or its
customers of like or directly competitive products. Furthermore,
the subject firm did not shift production of sheet/fiberglass
molding compound from the Lancaster, Ohio plant to a foreign
country.
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 22nd day of December 2004.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
_______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-54,796
VENTURE INDUSTRIES
LANCASTER OHIO PLNAT
LANCASTER, OHIO
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated July 19, 2004, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding the eligibility for workers of Venture
Industries to apply for trade adjustment assistance. The denial
notice applicable to workers of the subject firm located
Lancaster, Ohio, was signed on June 25, 2004, and was published
in the Federal Register on August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46574).
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.
In the request for reconsideration of the petition denial,
the petitioner claims that worker separations were “due to the
circumstances of the Venture Pegaform plant in Germany being in
financial trouble, profits from the American plants were used to
help get this facility back to where it could turn a profit,
therefore leaving the American Venture Plants in financial
trouble.” The petitioner adds that the money used for the
Venture Pegaform plant in Germany could have kept the Lancaster,
Ohio plant open.
In order for the workers of the subject firm to be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance, the worker
group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, must be met.
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have
become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely;
(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles
produced by such firm or subdivision have increased; and
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and
to the decline in the sales or production of such firm or
subdivision; or
(B)(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or
subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement
with the United States;
(II) the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production
of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
(III) there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of
articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which
are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
The worker group eligibility requirements described above
does not contain a provision for a shift of profits from a U.S.
firm to a firm in a foreign country.
The workers of Venture Industries, Lancaster Ohio Plant,
Lancaster, Ohio, produced sheet/fiberglass molding compound for
exterior automotive parts. The Department’s initial
investigation determined that during the relevant period (from
2002 through April 2004) there were no imports by the firm or its
customers of like or directly competitive products. Furthermore,
the subject firm did not shift production of sheet/fiberglass
molding compound from the Lancaster, Ohio plant to a foreign
country.
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 22nd day of December 2004.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
_______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance