Petitioner Type: Company
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 10/24/2005
Most Recent Update: 12/16/2005
Determination Date: 12/16/2005
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-58,177
REXNORD DISC COUPLING OPERATION
COUPLING DIVISION
WARREN, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On January 18, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department’s
notice was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2006
(71 FR 4938).
The petition for the workers of Rexnord Disc Coupling
Operation, Coupling Division, Warren, Pennsylvania was denied
because sales and production declined from 2003 through 2004, and
January through October 2005 over the corresponding 2004 period.
The initial determination also stated that productions shifted
from the subject facility to another production facility in
Alabama.
In the request for reconsideration, the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge
#2304, alleged that the subject firm increased imports, is
shifting production to China and importing the finished product.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
contacted both the union representative and a company official to
discuss the union’s allegations.
According to the union representative, the workers produced
flexible couplings and the subject company was importing coupling
components. The imported components were either assembled at the
subject facility into completed flexible couplings or shipped to
other domestic plants for assembly into flexible couplings. The
subject facility closed in December 2005 when operations were
consolidated with an affiliated coupling production plant in
Auburn, Alabama.
Subsequent conversations with the company official confirmed
that coupling components, and not finished flexible couplings,
were imported and that operations at the Warren, Pennsylvania
plant were consolidated with the Auburn, Alabama facility.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. In the case at hand, the
Department must consider imports of article which are like or
directly competitive with flexible couplings produced at the
subject company’s Warren, Pennsylvania facility. Because
coupling components are not like or directly competitive with
finished flexible couplings, increased imports of coupling
components cannot be the basis for Trade Adjustment Assistance
certification for the subject worker group.
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 13th day of February 2006
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-58,177
REXNORD DISC COUPLING OPERATION
COUPLING DIVISION
WARREN, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On January 18, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department’s
notice was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2006
(71 FR 4938).
The petition for the workers of Rexnord Disc Coupling
Operation, Coupling Division, Warren, Pennsylvania was denied
because sales and production declined from 2003 through 2004, and
January through October 2005 over the corresponding 2004 period.
The initial determination also stated that productions shifted
from the subject facility to another production facility in
Alabama.
In the request for reconsideration, the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge
#2304, alleged that the subject firm increased imports, is
shifting production to China and importing the finished product.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
contacted both the union representative and a company official to
discuss the union’s allegations.
According to the union representative, the workers produced
flexible couplings and the subject company was importing coupling
components. The imported components were either assembled at the
subject facility into completed flexible couplings or shipped to
other domestic plants for assembly into flexible couplings. The
subject facility closed in December 2005 when operations were
consolidated with an affiliated coupling production plant in
Auburn, Alabama.
Subsequent conversations with the company official confirmed
that coupling components, and not finished flexible couplings,
were imported and that operations at the Warren, Pennsylvania
plant were consolidated with the Auburn, Alabama facility.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. In the case at hand, the
Department must consider imports of article which are like or
directly competitive with flexible couplings produced at the
subject company’s Warren, Pennsylvania facility. Because
coupling components are not like or directly competitive with
finished flexible couplings, increased imports of coupling
components cannot be the basis for Trade Adjustment Assistance
certification for the subject worker group.
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 13th day of February 2006
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Assistance