DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-55,233

MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION
INCLUDING LEASED WORKERS OF
D&H ASSOCIATES, INC. AND PROSERV, INC.
ESCANABA MILL
ESCANABA, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of September 7, 2004, a petitioner
representative 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
August 10, 2004 and published in the Federal Register on
September 8, 2004 (69 FR 54321).
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, which was filed on behalf of workers at
Meadwestvaco Corporation, Escanaba Mills, Escanaba, Michigan
engaged in the production of coated paper, was denied based on
the findings that during the relevant time periods, the subject
company did not separate or threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers, as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974, that subject company sales and production
had increased from 2002 to 2003, and also increased during
January through July 2004 compare to 2003, and that the subject
company did not shift production abroad.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that the Department “did not take into account the true number of
affected workers and job losses due to lost sales to foreign
competition.”
For companies with a workforce of over fifty workers, a
significant proportion of worker separations or threatened
separations is five percent. In determining whether there were a
significant proportion of workers separated or threatened with
separations at the subject company during the relevant time
periods, the Department requested employment figures for the
subject company’s Escanaba Mill for 2002, 2003, January-July 2003
and January-July 2004. A careful review of the information
provided in the initial investigation revealed that employment at
the Escanaba Mill declined about two percent during the relevant
time period.
A petitioner was contacted to clarify the statement of “the
true number of affected workers”. The petitioner informed that a
significant number of workers had been separated from the subject
firm since 1998 and that this number should be taken into
consideration by the Department.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers the relevant employment data for the
facility where the petitioning worker group was employed. The
relevant period represents four quarters back from the date of
the petition, thus data from 1998 is irrelevant in this
investigation. As employment levels, sales and production at the
subject facility did not decline in the relevant period, and the
subject firm did not shift production to a foreign country,
criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A), (a)(2)(B)(II.A), (a)(2)(A)(I.B), and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The request for reconsideration also alleged that the
subject company failed to provide key customer contact
information.
Since the petition resulted in a denial due to employment,
sales and production criteria not being met, the initial
investigation did not pursue this line of inquiry and any alleged
failure to provide customer contact information did not influence
the determination of the case.




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 October, 2004
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
__________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance