DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-55,045

MERROW MACHINE COMPANY
NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 24, 2004, International Union of
Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers -
Communications Workers of America, Local No. 249 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 July 13, 2004, and
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.


The petition for the workers of Merrow Machine Company,
Newington, Connecticut engaged in production of industrial sewing
machines was denied because the “contributed importantly” group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s
customers. The survey revealed no increase of imports of
industrial sewing machines during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import industrial sewing machines in the
relevant period nor did it shift production to a foreign country.
The petitioner alleges that the subject company shipped
products to several foreign countries, including China, Russia
and Japan, thus workers of the subject firm should be eligible
for TAA.
As trade adjustment assistance is concerned exclusively with
whether imports or a shift in production to a trade impacted
country causes layoffs of petitioning worker groups, the above-
mentioned allegation regarding subject firm’s exports of products
is irrelevant.
A company official was requested to provide the additional
list of all the remaining customers which were not surveyed
during the original investigation. All customers provided by a
company official during the reconsideration represent foreign
firms.
The petitioner further alleges that the subject firm lost
its business due to an impact of the foreign competition on
textile industry.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey
of the subject firm’s major declining domestic customers
regarding their purchases of industrial sewing machines. The
survey revealed that the declining customers did not import
industrial sewing machines during the relevant period.
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 26th day of August, 2004


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance