Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date: 02/07/2005
Filed Date: 02/09/2006
Most Recent Update: 02/24/2006
Determination Date: 02/24/2006
Expiration Date: 02/07/2009
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-58,808
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPPLY CHAIN WORKFORCE
PRINTING SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES DIVISION
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand
On December 8, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the U.S. Department of Labor's motion for a
voluntary remand in Former Employees of Lexmark International,
Inc. v. United States, Court No. 06-00327.
On February 7, 2006, three workers filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and former
workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce,
Printing Solutions and Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky
(subject facility). The petitioners stated that the subject
facility produced “printers and supplies” and attached an
article which stated that Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexmark)
planned to move jobs abroad to countries where Lexmark has
existing ink cartridge production facilities, including Mexico,
China, and the Philippines (“Lexmark benefits from its plans to
trim jobs,” Bloomberg News, January 25, 2006).
In the negative determination, the Department stated that
the subject workers did not work directly in the manufacture of
the products made by Lexmark. The determination also stated
that the predominant cause of worker separations was not a shift
of production abroad but was Lexmark’s decision to position
support tasks closer to where Lexmark’s manufacturing partners
and customers are located worldwide, including Mexico and the
Philippines.
The Department’s Notice of determination applicable to the
subject facility was issued on February 24, 2006. The
Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14550).
On March 25, 2006, a worker requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's determination. In the
request for reconsideration, the worker alleged that the subject
workers supported the production of ink and printer cartridges
produced by Lexmark and inferred that support activities were
shifted overseas when production shifted abroad.
The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to the
subject facility on April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the
Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register (71 FR 21042).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
determined that the subject workers are an integral part of ink
and printer cartridge production and are not separately
identifiable by product line. However, because the Department
was repeatedly informed by the subject firm that neither the
subject facility nor Lexmark produced ink or cartridges
domestically during the relevant period, the Department
determined that the subject workers are not employed by a
company covered by the statute and, therefore, are not eligible
to apply for TAA because the subject workers were not employed
by a firm (or an appropriate subdivision) which produced an
article domestically during the relevant period.
The Department’s Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration applicable to the subject facility was issued on
July 19, 2006. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2006.
On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with
the USCIT. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the
Department’s determination was based on the erroneous finding
that “Lexmark did not produce ink or cartridges domestically
during the twelve-month period prior to the petition date.”
After careful review of the Plaintiff’s complaint and the
administrative record, prepared in response to the complaint,
the Department filed a motion for voluntary remand.
On December 8, 2006, the USCIT granted the Department’s
motion for voluntary remand to conduct further investigation and
to make a redetermination regarding the Plaintiffs’ eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance (TAA and ATAA).
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group
eligibility requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or
(a)(2)(B) of Section 222 of the Trade Act must be met. It is
determined in this case that the requirements of (a)(2)(B) of
Section 222 have been met.
During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed
the administrative record, contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, and
requested additional information and clarification from Lexmark.
During the remand investigation, the Department obtained
new information which revealed that, contrary to information
previously-submitted by Lexmark, the subject facility produced
ink and that the subject firm shifted ink production from the
subject facility to existing foreign inkjet cartridge production
facilities, including facilities in Mexico, during the relevant
period, and that a significant proportion of the workforce at
the subject facility was separated.
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 for older workers. In order for
the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply
for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of
the Trade Act must be met.
The Department has determined in the case at hand that the
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
remand investigation, I determine that a shift of production to
Mexico of articles like or directly competitive with ink
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 Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain
Workforce, Printing Solutions and Services Division,
Lexington, Kentucky, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after February 7, 2005,
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, as
amended."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 5th day of February 2007.
/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-58,808
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPPLY CHAIN WORKFORCE
PRINTING SOLUTIONS & SERVICES DIVISION
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On April 13, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Lexmark International, Inc.,
Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions & Services Division,
Lexington, Kentucky (subject firm). The Notice was published in
the Federal Register on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 21042).
The subject workers are engaged in product planning,
purchasing of components, support and engineering, logistics,
operations, and vendor relations.
In the initial investigation, the Department had determined
that although production occurred within the firm or appropriate
subdivision, the subject workers do not directly support this
production. The Department had also found that the predominant
cause of worker separations was Lexmark International, Inc.’s
decision to position tasks to other domestic locations in order
to be closer to their production partners and customers, who are
located worldwide.
Workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Lexington,
Kentucky were certified as eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on February 12, 2002 (TA-W-40,395)
based on increased company imports of printers and inkjet
cartridges.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts
that the subject workers supported the production of components
(ink) of articles produced by the subject firm (ink and printer
cartridges) and that their support functions were shifted abroad
when cartridge production shifted abroad.
New information provided by the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation supports the finding that the
subject workers purchased ink components which were used in the
ink that was inserted into the ink cartridges which were used in
the printers produced by the subject firm. As such, the workers
are an integral part of ink and printer cartridge production.
Under the statute, the subject worker group must be
employed by a firm (or an appropriate subdivision) which
produced an article domestically during the twelve month period
prior to the petition date. During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department confirmed that neither the subject
firm nor Lexmark International, Inc. produced ink or cartridges
domestically during the relevant perioid.
Therefore, the Department determines that the subject
workers are not employed by a company covered by the statute and
are not eligible to apply for TAA.
In addition, 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 for older
workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be
certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the subject workers
are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be
certified eligible for ATAA.
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 revision of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 19th day of July 2006
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-58,808
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPPLY CHAIN WORKFORCE
PRINTING SOLUTIONS & SERVICES DIVISION
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
Negative Determination 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 investigation was initiated on February 9, 2006 in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Lexmark
International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions
& Services Division (PS&SD) Division, Lexington, Kentucky. The
workers at the subject division are engaged in product planning,
purchasing of components, support and engineering, logistics,
operations, and vendor relations. They do not work directly in
the manufacture of the products made by Lexmark, but rather work
with Lexmark’s vendors.
Lexmark International, Inc. manufactures and utilizes third
party vendors to provide laser printers and inkjet products for
the business and home consumer markets.
Workers at the subject division were denied eligibility to
apply for trade adjustment assistance on August 25, 2004 under
case TA-W-55,234.
In order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the
worker group seeking certification (or on whose behalf
certification is being sought) must work for a "firm" or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically
and there must be a relationship between the workers' work and
the article produced by the workers' firm or appropriate
subdivision. The investigation revealed that although
production of an article(s) occurred within the firm or
appropriate subdivision, the Supply Chain workers at the
Lexington facility do not directly support this production. The
workers are engaged in planning, purchasing of components,
product support and engineering, logistics, and vendor
relations. Thus the worker group can not be considered import
impacted or affected by a shift in production of an article.
The predominant cause of worker separations was to position
tasks closer to where the subject firm’s manufacturing partners
and customers are located worldwide including Mexico, China,
and the Philippines, not the transfer of production itself,
which did not occur.
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
Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing
Solutions & Services Division (PS&SD) Division, Lexington,
Kentucky 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 adjust-
ment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 24th day of February, 2006.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 2 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-58,808
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPPLY CHAIN WORKFORCE
PRINTING SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES DIVISION
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand
On December 8, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the U.S. Department of Labor's motion for a
voluntary remand in Former Employees of Lexmark International,
Inc. v. United States, Court No. 06-00327.
On February 7, 2006, three workers filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and former
workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce,
Printing Solutions and Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky
(subject facility). The petitioners stated that the subject
facility produced “printers and supplies” and attached an
article which stated that Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexmark)
planned to move jobs abroad to countries where Lexmark has
existing ink cartridge production facilities, including Mexico,
China, and the Philippines (“Lexmark benefits from its plans to
trim jobs,” Bloomberg News, January 25, 2006).
In the negative determination, the Department stated that
the subject workers did not work directly in the manufacture of
the products made by Lexmark. The determination also stated
that the predominant cause of worker separations was not a shift
of production abroad but was Lexmark’s decision to position
support tasks closer to where Lexmark’s manufacturing partners
and customers are located worldwide, including Mexico and the
Philippines.
The Department’s Notice of determination applicable to the
subject facility was issued on February 24, 2006. The
Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14550).
On March 25, 2006, a worker requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's determination. In the
request for reconsideration, the worker alleged that the subject
workers supported the production of ink and printer cartridges
produced by Lexmark and inferred that support activities were
shifted overseas when production shifted abroad.
The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to the
subject facility on April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the
Department’s Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register (71 FR 21042).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
determined that the subject workers are an integral part of ink
and printer cartridge production and are not separately
identifiable by product line. However, because the Department
was repeatedly informed by the subject firm that neither the
subject facility nor Lexmark produced ink or cartridges
domestically during the relevant period, the Department
determined that the subject workers are not employed by a
company covered by the statute and, therefore, are not eligible
to apply for TAA because the subject workers were not employed
by a firm (or an appropriate subdivision) which produced an
article domestically during the relevant period.
The Department’s Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration applicable to the subject facility was issued on
July 19, 2006. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2006.
On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with
the USCIT. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the
Department’s determination was based on the erroneous finding
that “Lexmark did not produce ink or cartridges domestically
during the twelve-month period prior to the petition date.”
After careful review of the Plaintiff’s complaint and the
administrative record, prepared in response to the complaint,
the Department filed a motion for voluntary remand.
On December 8, 2006, the USCIT granted the Department’s
motion for voluntary remand to conduct further investigation and
to make a redetermination regarding the Plaintiffs’ eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance (TAA and ATAA).
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group
eligibility requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or
(a)(2)(B) of Section 222 of the Trade Act must be met. It is
determined in this case that the requirements of (a)(2)(B) of
Section 222 have been met.
During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed
the administrative record, contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, and
requested additional information and clarification from Lexmark.
During the remand investigation, the Department obtained
new information which revealed that, contrary to information
previously-submitted by Lexmark, the subject facility produced
ink and that the subject firm shifted ink production from the
subject facility to existing foreign inkjet cartridge production
facilities, including facilities in Mexico, during the relevant
period, and that a significant proportion of the workforce at
the subject facility was separated.
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 for older workers. In order for
the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply
for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of
the Trade Act must be met.
The Department has determined in the case at hand that the
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
remand investigation, I determine that a shift of production to
Mexico of articles like or directly competitive with ink
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 Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain
Workforce, Printing Solutions and Services Division,
Lexington, Kentucky, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after February 7, 2005,
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, as
amended."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 5th day of February 2007.
/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-58,808
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPPLY CHAIN WORKFORCE
PRINTING SOLUTIONS & SERVICES DIVISION
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On April 13, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Lexmark International, Inc.,
Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions & Services Division,
Lexington, Kentucky (subject firm). The Notice was published in
the Federal Register on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 21042).
The subject workers are engaged in product planning,
purchasing of components, support and engineering, logistics,
operations, and vendor relations.
In the initial investigation, the Department had determined
that although production occurred within the firm or appropriate
subdivision, the subject workers do not directly support this
production. The Department had also found that the predominant
cause of worker separations was Lexmark International, Inc.’s
decision to position tasks to other domestic locations in order
to be closer to their production partners and customers, who are
located worldwide.
Workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Lexington,
Kentucky were certified as eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on February 12, 2002 (TA-W-40,395)
based on increased company imports of printers and inkjet
cartridges.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts
that the subject workers supported the production of components
(ink) of articles produced by the subject firm (ink and printer
cartridges) and that their support functions were shifted abroad
when cartridge production shifted abroad.
New information provided by the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation supports the finding that the
subject workers purchased ink components which were used in the
ink that was inserted into the ink cartridges which were used in
the printers produced by the subject firm. As such, the workers
are an integral part of ink and printer cartridge production.
Under the statute, the subject worker group must be
employed by a firm (or an appropriate subdivision) which
produced an article domestically during the twelve month period
prior to the petition date. During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department confirmed that neither the subject
firm nor Lexmark International, Inc. produced ink or cartridges
domestically during the relevant perioid.
Therefore, the Department determines that the subject
workers are not employed by a company covered by the statute and
are not eligible to apply for TAA.
In addition, 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 for older
workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be
certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the subject workers
are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be
certified eligible for ATAA.
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 revision of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 19th day of July 2006
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-58,808
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SUPPLY CHAIN WORKFORCE
PRINTING SOLUTIONS & SERVICES DIVISION
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
Negative Determination 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 investigation was initiated on February 9, 2006 in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Lexmark
International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions
& Services Division (PS&SD) Division, Lexington, Kentucky. The
workers at the subject division are engaged in product planning,
purchasing of components, support and engineering, logistics,
operations, and vendor relations. They do not work directly in
the manufacture of the products made by Lexmark, but rather work
with Lexmark’s vendors.
Lexmark International, Inc. manufactures and utilizes third
party vendors to provide laser printers and inkjet products for
the business and home consumer markets.
Workers at the subject division were denied eligibility to
apply for trade adjustment assistance on August 25, 2004 under
case TA-W-55,234.
In order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the
worker group seeking certification (or on whose behalf
certification is being sought) must work for a "firm" or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically
and there must be a relationship between the workers' work and
the article produced by the workers' firm or appropriate
subdivision. The investigation revealed that although
production of an article(s) occurred within the firm or
appropriate subdivision, the Supply Chain workers at the
Lexington facility do not directly support this production. The
workers are engaged in planning, purchasing of components,
product support and engineering, logistics, and vendor
relations. Thus the worker group can not be considered import
impacted or affected by a shift in production of an article.
The predominant cause of worker separations was to position
tasks closer to where the subject firm’s manufacturing partners
and customers are located worldwide including Mexico, China,
and the Philippines, not the transfer of production itself,
which did not occur.
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
Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing
Solutions & Services Division (PS&SD) Division, Lexington,
Kentucky 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 adjust-
ment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 24th day of February, 2006.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 2 -