Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 03/22/2005
Most Recent Update: 05/06/2005
Determination Date: 05/06/2005
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,782
FC MEYER PACKAGING, LLC/MILLEN INDUSTRIES, INC.
LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of May 20, 2005, a petitioner 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 May 6, 2005, and
published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30145).
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 FC Meyer Packaging,
LLC/Millen Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts engaged in
production of shoe boxes was denied because the “contributed
importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 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 customers. The survey revealed
that imports of shoe boxes were minimal during the relevant
period and imports did not contribute importantly to separations
at the subject firm. The subject firm did not import shoe boxes
nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the
relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its
business due to the customers shifting their production of shoes
abroad and buying shoe boxes overseas.
The petitioner concludes that, because the production of
shoes occurs abroad, the subject firm workers producing shoe
boxes are import impacted.
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 shoe boxes. The survey revealed that the declining
customers did not import shoe boxes during the relevant period.
The petitioner further cites a list of customers which
shifted their production overseas and imported shoe boxes back to
the United States.
Some of these customers were already surveyed by the
Department during the original investigation. A review of the
survey responses confirms import purchases of show boxes were
minimal and did not contribute importantly to the layoffs at the
subject plant during the relevant period.
A company official was contacted to verify the allegations
regarding the customers which were not surveyed during the
initial investigation. The official stated that all of these
companies were customers of the subject firm in the years prior
to 2001, which is outside of the relevant time 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.
this
Signed at Washington, D.C. day 22nd of June, 2005.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,782
FC MEYER PACKAGING,LLC/MILLEN INDUSTRIES,INC.
LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS
Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.
The investigation was initiated on March 22, 2005 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of FC Meyer Packaging,
LLC/Millen Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts. The workers
produce box packaging for shoes. A significant portion of
production is sold abroad for use by shoe manufacturers abroad.
The investigation revealed that criteria (I.C) and (II.B) have
not been met.
The investigation revealed that there were no company imports
of shoe boxes, nor was there a shift in production of shoe boxes
from the Lawrence facility to a foreign country during the period
under investigation.
The United States Department of Labor conducted a survey of
major customers of the subject firm regarding their purchases of
shoe box packaging in 2003, 2004, and January-March 2005. The
survey revealed that imports of shoe boxes were minimal in the
relevant period and did not contribute importantly to separations
at the subject firm.
A significant portion of company sales were for the export
market. Loss of exports, however, cannot be the basis for
certification under the Trade Act of 1974.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since
the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of FC Meyer
Packaging, LLC / Millen Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts
are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 6th day of May, 2005.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,782
FC MEYER PACKAGING, LLC/MILLEN INDUSTRIES, INC.
LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of May 20, 2005, a petitioner 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 May 6, 2005, and
published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30145).
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 FC Meyer Packaging,
LLC/Millen Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts engaged in
production of shoe boxes was denied because the “contributed
importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 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 customers. The survey revealed
that imports of shoe boxes were minimal during the relevant
period and imports did not contribute importantly to separations
at the subject firm. The subject firm did not import shoe boxes
nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the
relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its
business due to the customers shifting their production of shoes
abroad and buying shoe boxes overseas.
The petitioner concludes that, because the production of
shoes occurs abroad, the subject firm workers producing shoe
boxes are import impacted.
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 shoe boxes. The survey revealed that the declining
customers did not import shoe boxes during the relevant period.
The petitioner further cites a list of customers which
shifted their production overseas and imported shoe boxes back to
the United States.
Some of these customers were already surveyed by the
Department during the original investigation. A review of the
survey responses confirms import purchases of show boxes were
minimal and did not contribute importantly to the layoffs at the
subject plant during the relevant period.
A company official was contacted to verify the allegations
regarding the customers which were not surveyed during the
initial investigation. The official stated that all of these
companies were customers of the subject firm in the years prior
to 2001, which is outside of the relevant time 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.
this
Signed at Washington, D.C. day 22nd of June, 2005.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,782
FC MEYER PACKAGING,LLC/MILLEN INDUSTRIES,INC.
LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS
Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.
The investigation was initiated on March 22, 2005 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of FC Meyer Packaging,
LLC/Millen Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts. The workers
produce box packaging for shoes. A significant portion of
production is sold abroad for use by shoe manufacturers abroad.
The investigation revealed that criteria (I.C) and (II.B) have
not been met.
The investigation revealed that there were no company imports
of shoe boxes, nor was there a shift in production of shoe boxes
from the Lawrence facility to a foreign country during the period
under investigation.
The United States Department of Labor conducted a survey of
major customers of the subject firm regarding their purchases of
shoe box packaging in 2003, 2004, and January-March 2005. The
survey revealed that imports of shoe boxes were minimal in the
relevant period and did not contribute importantly to separations
at the subject firm.
A significant portion of company sales were for the export
market. Loss of exports, however, cannot be the basis for
certification under the Trade Act of 1974.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since
the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of FC Meyer
Packaging, LLC / Millen Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts
are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 6th day of May, 2005.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance