DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-57,700

JOY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
DBA JOY MINING MACHINERY
MT. VERNON PLANT,
MT. VERNON, ILLINOIS

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On January 22, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department)
for further review Former Employees of Joy Technologies, Inc. v.
U.S Secretary of Labor, Court No. 06-00088.
On August 2, 2005, the International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
Local 483, filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on
behalf of workers and former workers of Joy Mining Machinery,
Mt. Vernon, Illinois (subject facility) producing underground
mining equipment. The petition alleged that the subject
facility would close September 23, 2005, due to a shift of
production to Canada, China, Mexico and Russia.
During the initial TAA investigation, the Department
determined that the subject workers produced mining machinery
and mining machinery components, and that the workers were not
separately identifiable by product line.
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 initial negative determination regarding eligibility to
apply for TAA, issued on September 25, 2005, was based on the
Department’s findings that employment at the subject facility
increased during the relevant period, that subject facility
sales did not decrease during the relevant period, that Joy
corporate sales increased during the relevant period, and that
there was no shift of production to a foreign country.
By application letter application dated November 3, 2005,
the former workers requested administrative reconsideration,
alleging that the workers’ separations were due to a shift of
production to Mexico.
On January 19, 2006, the Department issued a negative
determination on reconsideration. The denial was based on the
Department’s findings that there was no shift of production to
Mexico and that the workers were not eligible to apply for TAA
as workers of a secondarily-affected company.
By letter dated March 15, 2006, Plaintiffs sought judicial
review. Plaintiffs asserted that the petitioning workers are
eligible to apply for TAA due to either increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with crawler track frames
(a type of mining machinery component) produced by the subject
facility or a shift of production crawler track frames to
Mexico.
During the first remand investigation, the Department
determined that there was no shift of production to a foreign
country and that increased imports could not have contributed
importantly to the workers’ separations because subject firm
sales increased during the relevant period. On January 8, 2007,
the Department issued a negative determination on remand.
During the second remand investigation, the Department
determined that crawler track frame production at the subject
facility increased during the relevant period and that imports
of articles like or directly competitive with these articles
ceased before the subject facility closed, and concluded that
imports of crawler track frames did not contribute importantly
to subject facility sales and/or production declines and worker
separations. A second negative determination on remand was
issued on June 12, 2008.
During the third remand investigation, the Department
carefully reviewed the language of the statute, the applicable
regulation, and the administrative record.
As a result of the review, the Department determined that,
during the relevant period, a significant portion or number of
workers at the subject facility was separated and there was a
shift of production of mining machinery components to Mexico.
Therefore, the Department determines that the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, has been met.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of
its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to
apply for ATAA.
The Department has determined in this case that the group
eligibility requirements of Section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or
over and possess skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts generated through the
first and second remand investigations, I determine that a shift
of production to Mexico of articles like or directly competitive
to mining machinery components produced at the subject facility
contributed to the total or partial separation of a significant
number or proportion of workers at the subject facility.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:



"All workers of Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining
Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, Illinois (TA-W-
57,700), who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after August 2, 2004, through two years
from the issuance of this revised determination, are
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of January 2009.

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

4510-FN-P



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-57,700

JOY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
DBA JOY MINING MACHINERY
MT. VERNON PLANT
MT. VERNON, ILLINOIS

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:
B. 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:

C. 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;
D. 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:
4. 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;
5. 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
6. 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 August 9, 2005 in
response to a petition filed by the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, Local 483 on behalf of workers at Joy Technologies,
Inc., dba Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon,
Illinois. The workers produce underground mining machinery
(i.e. shuttle cars, electrical motors, gearboxes and armored
face conveyors).
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) were not met.
The investigation also revealed that sales and employment
increased from 2003 to 2004. Employment also increased again
during the period of January through July 2005 over the
corresponding 2004 period. Sales by the subject firm remained
stable in January through July 2005 over the corresponding 2004
period. Company-wide sales increased over the same January
through July 2004 and 2005 period.
The subject firm imported component parts for the final
production. The component parts cannot be considered like or
directly competitive with the final products produced by the
firm.
The petitioner claimed that the subject firm shifted the
production to a foreign country but the investigation determined
that not to be the case. The subject firm did not shift
production to a foreign country.
The worker separations at the subject firm are attributable
to the firm’s shift in the production from the Mt. Vernon Plant
to another of its domestic production facilities.
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 of the facts obtained in this
investigation, I determine that all workers at Joy Technologies,
Inc., dba Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon,
Illinois 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 15th day of September, 2005.

/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 7 -