DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-58,929

MILPRINT, INC.
A DIVISION OF BEMIS COMPANY
DENMARK, WISCONSIN


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On May 10, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Notice was
published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28712).
The workers produce flexible plastic packaging, used largely in
confectionary and snack food markets, and paper for packaging
cigarettes. Workers are not separately identifiable by product
line.
The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) filed on behalf of
the workers of Milprint, Inc., A Division of Bemis Company,
Denmark, Wisconsin (subject firm) was denied because the subject
firm neither imported flexible plastic packaging or cigarette
paper, nor shifted production of either article abroad during the
relevant period. The investigation also revealed that the parent
firm experienced increased sales of articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject facility during
the investigatory period.
The petitioners had also filed as workers of a secondarily-
affected company (supplied component parts for articles produced
by a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group). In the
initial determination, the Department stated that the subject
facility does not supply cigarette paper component parts to any
TAA-certified firm in the relevant time period and that flexible
plastic packaging is not a component part of confectionaries.
In the request for reconsideration, the United Steel
Workers, Local 7-1203 (Union) stated that cigarette packaging
paper constituted ten percent of subject firm production and that
it was supplied to a TAA-certified firm, P.H. Gladfether, Neenah,
Wisconsin (TA-W-53,612). The Union also stated that flexible
plastic packaging constituted ninety percent of subject firm
production and that this article was supplied to TAA-certified
companies: Farley’s and Sather Candy (TA-W-51,546), Archibald
Candy (TA-W-53,983), American Safety Razor (TA-W-57,323), and
Bob’s Candy (TA-W-57,772).
To be certified as a secondarily-affected company, the
subject firm must have a customer with a currently TAA-certified
worker group and the subject firm produces a component part of
the product that was the basis for the customer’s certification.
In addition, the TAA-certified customer must account for at least
twenty percent of subject firm’s sales or production or the loss
of business with the customer contributed importantly to the
workers’ separations.
According to the Union, cigarette paper production
constituted only ten percent of subject firm production. Even if
P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin was the subject firm’s only
customer of this product, sales to P.H. Gladfether would have
accounted for less than twenty percent of overall sales or
production of the subject firm. Further, P.H. Gladfether,
Neenah, Wisconsin was not a major customer of the subject firm.
Therefore, the Department determines P.H. Gladfether accounted
for less that twenty percent of overall subject firm sales or
production and the loss of business with this customer did not
contribute importantly to the workers’ separations.
In order to determine whether the workers are eligible to
apply for TAA as secondarily-affected workers of a company that
supplied flexible plastic packaging to a firm with a currently
TAA-certified worker group, the Department requested the subject
firm’s 2005 sales figures for Farley’s and Sather Candy,
Archibald Candy, American Safety Razor, and Bob’s Candy.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that, during the
relevant period, the subject firm conducted no business with
three of the customers identified by the Union and conducted an
insignificant amount of business with the fourth customer. As
such, the Department determines that each customer accounted for
less that twenty percent of overall subject firm sales or
production and that the loss of business with each customer did
not contribute importantly to the workers’ separations.
The Union also alleged in the request for reconsideration
that flexible plastic packaging production had shifted abroad.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
confirmed that flexible plastic packaging production did not
shift abroad but shifted to affiliated production facilities in
Lancaster, Wisconsin and Lebanon, Pennsylvania.
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 21st day of July 2006

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

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