DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-56,277

GLENSHAW GLASS COMPANY
GLENSHAW, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of March 9, 2005, United Steel Workers of
American, District 10, 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 termination notice
applicable to workers of Glenshaw Glass Company, Glenshaw,
Pennsylvania was signed on January 28, 2005, and published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 2005 (70 FR 8828).
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 Glenshaw
Glass Company, Glenshaw, Pennsylvania engaged in the maintenance
and repair of mold equipment used in the production of glass
containers. The petition was terminated due to the fact, that no
new information or change in circumstances was evident which
would result in a reversal of the Department’s previous negative
determination (TA-W-55,898). The TA-W-55,898 petition was filed
by the production workers of the subject firm engaged in
manufacturing of glass containers. The petition TA-W-55,898 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 customers of the workers’ firm.
The survey revealed that the major declining customers did not
increase their imports of glass containers during the relevant
time period. The subject firm did not import glass containers in
the relevant period nor did it shift production to a foreign
country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner contends
that the Department erred in establishing the worker group under
a new petition. The petitioner further states that the group of
employees which was denied TAA under petition TA-W-55,898 was not
engaged in the same job duties as the group of workers
petitioning under TA-W-56,277, thus a new investigation should
have been performed regarding the new petitioning group of
workers.
The original investigation did reveal that the petitioning
group of workers was engaged in the maintenance and repair of
mold equipment. However, this activity is not considered
production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the
Trade Act. Therefore, the subject group of workers can not be
eligible for TAA on its own, based on the fact, that workers do
not produce an article. However, it was determined that the
petitioning service workers supported production of glass
containers at the subject firm and could be considered eligible
for TAA as directly-impacted workers in support of production of
glass containers at Glenshaw Glass Company, Glenshaw,
Pennsylvania. If production workers were found to be certifiable
for TAA during the relevant period, service workers in support of
production at an affiliated facility would be determined eligible
for TAA as well. Due to the fact that Glenshaw Glass Company,
Glenshaw, Pennsylvania was investigated previously and denied of
TAA (TA-W 55,898) and no new information was discovered in the
second investigation the petition was terminated.
The petitioner further alleges that the subject firm lost
its business due to its major customers importing like or
directly competitive products.
The customers of the subject firm were surveyed by the
Department during the original investigation. A review of the
surveys confirmed no increase in import of glass containers
during the relevant period.
The petitioner further states that the subject firm imported
mold equipment which is used to produce glass containers. The
petitioner concludes that, because the production of mold
equipment occurs abroad, the petitioning workers who repair this
equipment domestically are import impacted.
The Department contacted a company official to verify
whether a production of mold equipment occurs at the subject
facility. The official stated that workers of the subject firm
did not produce mold equipment during the relevant time period.
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 customer regarding their
purchases of glass containers. The survey revealed that the
declining customers did not increase their imports of glass
containers 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 22nd day of April 2005


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

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