DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-56,536

BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
SUBSIDIARY OF BLUESCOPE STEEL, LTD
BUILDING DIVISION
WALL AND ROOF PANELS PRODUCTION
GALESBURG, ILLINOIS

TA-W-56,536A

BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
SUBSIDIARY OF BLUESCOPE STEEL, LTD
BUILDING DIVISION
TRIM AND COMPONENTS PRODUCTION
GALESBURG, ILLINOIS

TA-W-56,536B

BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
SUBSIDIARY OF BLUESCOPE STEEL, LTD
BUILDING DIVISION
SECONDARIES PRODUCTION
GALESBURG, ILLINOIS


Notice of Negative Determination
On Remand

The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the Department of Labor’s motion for voluntary remand for
further investigation in Former Employees of Butler Manufacturing
Company v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 05-00440,
issued September 2, 2005). AR 181-182.
On February 7, 2005, three workers filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers at Butler
Manufacturing Company, Galesburg, Illinois (TA-W-56,536). The
petitioners stated that the workers’ separations were due to the
shift of the subject firm’s production of prefabricated buildings
to India, Mexico, and China and Butler’s imports of that article
from Mexico and China. AR 2.
The Secretary of Labor may certify as eligible for TAA
benefits only those workers who are employed in the subdivision
that produces the article that is adversely affected by imports
of “like or directly competitive” articles. Paden v. U.S.
Department of Labor, 562 F.2d 470, 475 (7th Cir.1977); See Abbott
v. Donovan, 596 F.Supp 475 (C.I.T. 1984). Therefore, during the
investigation, the Department of Labor (hereafter referred to as
“the Department”) requested information from Butler Manufacturing
Company in order to determine what articles were produced at the
subject firm during February 2004 through February 2005, the
twelve month period prior to the petition date (February 7, 2005)
which is the “relevant period” for investigation. The Department
also requested sale, production, and import figures regarding
those articles produced at the Galesburg, Illinois facility
during (AR 25-39, 57-66, 68) and conducted a survey of the
company’s major customer’s regarding their purchases of those
articles during the relevant period. AR 53-56, 67.
Based on information provided by the subject firm (AR 68),
the Department partitioned the petition into three subparts
(Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel,
LTD, Buildings Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production,
Galesburg, Illinois, TA-W-56,536; Butler Manufacturing Company,
Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Trim and
Components Production, Galesburg, Illinois, TA-W-56,536A; and
Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD,
Buildings Division, Secondaries Production, Galesburg, Illinois,
TA-W-56,536B) - hereafter referred to collectively as “the
subject firm” - to address those articles produced at Butler
Manufacturing Company, Galesburg, Illinois facility during the
relevant period: panels, trim and components, and secondaries.
On March 2, 2005, the Department issued a determination
denying certification of the workers’ eligibility to apply for
TAA and ATAA. AR 72-75. The negative determination was based on
the investigation’s findings that the subject firm did not shift
its production of panels, trim and components, or secondaries to
a foreign country and that there were no increased imports by the
subject firm or its customers of panels, trim and components, or
secondaries. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16847).
AR 80.
By application of April 1, 2005, the petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department’s denial,
alleging that the workers were not separately identifiable by
product line and that the workers’ separations were due to a
shift of production abroad and increased imports. AR 84-87. On
April 1, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration. AR 92.
On April 23, 2005, the Notice was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 21247). AR 125.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
contacted the subject company (AR 100, 133-139) and the workers
(AR 104-105) for additional information. Based on information
received by the company officials (AR 100, 129, 133-139) and the
workers (AR 106-124, 126-128, 130-132), the Department determined
on reconsideration that the workers were ineligible to apply for
TAA and ATAA. The Department determined that those workers were
not separately identifiable by product line and, nevertheless,
that the subject firm did not shift production of panels, trim
and components, or secondaries abroad. Instead, the subject firm
was shifting production of those articles to domestic, affiliated
facilities. AR 140-143. The Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination on Reconsideration on May 11, 2005. The
Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration was published
in the Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30142). AR 179-
180.
By letter dated July 21, 2005 to the USCIT, petitioners
requested judicial review. AR 154-155.
On September 2, 2005, the USCIT granted the Department’s
request for voluntary remand and directed the Department to
further investigate the subject workers’ eligibility to apply for
TAA and ATAA. AR 181-182.
During the remand investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed previously submitted information, solicited information
from the plaintiff and workers (AR 201), and contacted the
subject firm to obtain new and additional information regarding
the articles produced during the relevant period, the work done
by the subject workers, and the shift of production from the
subject firm.
A careful review of previously-submitted information and
newly-obtained information revealed that the Department’s finding
in the determination on reconsideration that the workers are not
separately identifiable by product line was in error (AR 141),
and the initial negative determination (of TA-W-56,536) finding
on this issue (AR 74) was correct. The information shows that
the workers were dedicated to particular production lines, that
workers’ movements between production lines were infrequent, and
that such movement were determined by union guidelines and
usually based on seniority. AR 41-49, 196-199. Because the
workers’ assignments to product lines in the Buildings Division
were constant and changes among workers on the production lines
were not the norm but the exception, the Department determines
that the workers were separately identifiable by product line.
However, regardless of whether or not the workers were separately
identifiable by product line, the evidence obtained from all
parties during the investigations do not support the workers’
claim that there was a shift of production of prefabricated
buildings or their components abroad or increased imports of
those articles during the relevant period.
Information provided by the subject firm revealed that the
only articles produced during the relevant period were panels,
trim and components, and secondaries. AR 183, 194-195. As such,
the Department focused its remand investigation on those articles
produced at the subject firm during the relevant period. AR 195-
201.
According to the subject firm, all trim and component,
secondaries, and panel production at the subject facility had
ceased by April 2005 and had shifted to a newly built facility in
Jackson, Tennessee. As anticipated by the subject firm (AR 41-
42), the production shift began in February 2005 and finished in
May 2005. AR 184, 195. Information provided by the subject firm
revealed no imports of panels (AR 186), trim and components (AR
187), or secondaries (AR 188). The previously conducted customer
survey covered the appropriate products and revealed no increased
imports of any products produced by the subject firm. AR 53-56,
67.
In response to the plaintiff’s assertion that production had
shifted to Mexico, India and China, the company official agreed
that a representative of the Mexico plant had visited the subject
firm. However, the reason for that visit was related to securing
replacement and updated equipment for truss purlin production in
Mexico (an article not produced at the subject firm during the
relevant period). AR 195. While some production of component
parts of these articles did shift to Asia (China), that shift
occurred in 2003, which is prior to the relevant period for this
petition. Further, those components were not made during the
relevant period at the subject firm. AR 184, 195.
Because the remand investigation revealed no imports of
articles like or directly competitive with panels, trim and
components, secondaries produced by the workers of the subject
firm by the subject firm or its customers during the relevant
period and no shifts of production of those articles abroad
during the relevant period, the statutory requirements of neither
Section 222(a)(1) and (2)(a) nor Section 222(a)(1) and (2)(B) of
the Trade Act or 1974, as amended, were met, and the Department
cannot certify the subject workers as eligible to apply for TAA.
Further, since the workers are not eligible to apply for TAA, the
workers cannot be found eligible to apply for ATAA under Section
246(a)(3)(B)(i) of that law.
Conclusion
As the result of the findings of the investigation on
remand, I affirm the negative determination of eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of
Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD,
Buildings Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg,
Illinois (TA-W-56,536); Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary
of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Trim and Components
Production, Galesburg, Illinois (TA-W-56,536A); and Butler
Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD,
Buildings Division, Secondaries Production, Galesburg, Illinois
(TA-W-56,536B).
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 1st day of November 2005.
/s/ Elliott S. November

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