DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-56,479

HOFFMASTER
SUBSIDIARY OF SOLO CUP COMPANY
GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of May 5, 2005 a petitioner 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on April 1, 2005 and
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2005 (70 FR 22710).
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, filed on behalf of workers at Hoffmaster,
Subsidiary of Solo Company, Green Bay, Wisconsin engaged in
production of napkins, placemats, and table covers was denied
because the "contributed importantly" group eligibility
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met,
nor was there a shift in production from that firm to a foreign
country. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
customers. The survey of customers was irrelevant in this case
as the investigation revealed that sales of napkins, placemats
and tablecovers increased at the subject firm during the relevant
time period. Nevertheless, the survey was conducted in the
initial investigation. The survey revealed an insignificant
amount of imports. The subject firm did not import napkins,
placemats and tablecovers in the relevant period, nor did it
shift production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that the layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to a shift
in production to a foreign country. Specifically, the petitioner
mentions several locations where the subject firm has plants and
which might be foreign locations, such as El Cajon, Glen Falls,
Goshen and St. Albans.
A company official was contacted regarding the above
allegations. The company official confirmed what was revealed
during the initial investigation. In particular, the official
stated that all the products which were produced at the subject
facility are now produced at other domestic facilities. He
further clarified that all locations mentioned by the petitioner
are domestic facilities - El Cajon in California, Glen Falls in
New York, Goshen in Indiana and St. Albans in Vermont.
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 25th day of May, 2005

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner


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