Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 08/01/2006
Most Recent Update: 08/28/2006
Determination Date: 08/28/2006
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-59,833
THE BAXTER CORPORATION
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated September 27, 2006, petitioners
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
August 28, 2006 and published in the Federal Register on
September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55217).
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 the Baxter Corporation,
Shelby, North Carolina engaged in production of jacquard textile
harnesses 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 in 2004, 2005 or January through
July, 2006. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed no imports of jacquard textile harnesses
during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import
jacquard textile harnesses nor did it shift production to a
foreign country during the relevant period.
The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their
jobs as a direct result of a loss of customers in the textile
industry. The petitioner alleges that major declining customers
of the subject firm were negatively impacted by increased imports
of various textiles, thus they decreased their purchases of
jacquard textile harnesses from the Baxter Corporation, Shelby,
North Carolina. The petitioner also states that several of the
subject firm’s customers were certified eligible for TAA based on
an increase in imports of various textile products. The
petitioner concludes that because sales and production of
jacquard textile harnesses at the subject firm have been
negatively impacted by increasing presence of foreign imports of
textile products on the market, workers of the subject firm
should be eligible for TAA.
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 customers regarding their
purchases of jacquard textile harnesses. The survey revealed
that the declining customers did not increase their imports of
jacquard textile harnesses during the relevant period.
Imports of textiles cannot be considered like or directly
competitive with jacquard textile harnesses produced by Baxter
Corporation, Shelby, North Carolina and imports of textiles are
not relevant in this investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers shifted their
production abroad or were import impacted is relevant to this
investigation if determining whether workers of the subject firm
are eligible for TAA based on the secondary upstream supplier of
trade certified primary firm impact. For certification on the
basis of the workers’ firm being a secondary upstream supplier,
the subject firm must produce a component part of the article
that was the basis for the customers’ TAA certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an
upstream supplier, because jacquard textile harnesses do not form
a component part of various fabrics, yarn and other textile
products. Thus the subject firm workers are not eligible under
secondary impact.
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., day 5th of October, 2006.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-59,833
THE BAXTER CORPORATION
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
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 August 1, 2006 in response
to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of The Baxter
Corporation, Shelby, North Carolina. Workers produce jacquard
textile harnesses.
This investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not import studs in 2004, 2005 or January
through July, 2006, nor did it shift production to a foreign
country in those periods.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
declining customers regarding purchases of jacquard textile
harnesses during 2004, 2005 and January through July 2006 over the
corresponding 2005 period. The survey revealed customers did not
increase imports during the relevant period.
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 the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Baxter Corporation,
Shelby, North Carolina 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 28th day of August 2006
/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
1
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-59,833
THE BAXTER CORPORATION
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated September 27, 2006, petitioners
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
August 28, 2006 and published in the Federal Register on
September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55217).
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 the Baxter Corporation,
Shelby, North Carolina engaged in production of jacquard textile
harnesses 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 in 2004, 2005 or January through
July, 2006. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed no imports of jacquard textile harnesses
during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import
jacquard textile harnesses nor did it shift production to a
foreign country during the relevant period.
The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their
jobs as a direct result of a loss of customers in the textile
industry. The petitioner alleges that major declining customers
of the subject firm were negatively impacted by increased imports
of various textiles, thus they decreased their purchases of
jacquard textile harnesses from the Baxter Corporation, Shelby,
North Carolina. The petitioner also states that several of the
subject firm’s customers were certified eligible for TAA based on
an increase in imports of various textile products. The
petitioner concludes that because sales and production of
jacquard textile harnesses at the subject firm have been
negatively impacted by increasing presence of foreign imports of
textile products on the market, workers of the subject firm
should be eligible for TAA.
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 customers regarding their
purchases of jacquard textile harnesses. The survey revealed
that the declining customers did not increase their imports of
jacquard textile harnesses during the relevant period.
Imports of textiles cannot be considered like or directly
competitive with jacquard textile harnesses produced by Baxter
Corporation, Shelby, North Carolina and imports of textiles are
not relevant in this investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers shifted their
production abroad or were import impacted is relevant to this
investigation if determining whether workers of the subject firm
are eligible for TAA based on the secondary upstream supplier of
trade certified primary firm impact. For certification on the
basis of the workers’ firm being a secondary upstream supplier,
the subject firm must produce a component part of the article
that was the basis for the customers’ TAA certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an
upstream supplier, because jacquard textile harnesses do not form
a component part of various fabrics, yarn and other textile
products. Thus the subject firm workers are not eligible under
secondary impact.
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., day 5th of October, 2006.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-59,833
THE BAXTER CORPORATION
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
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 August 1, 2006 in response
to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of The Baxter
Corporation, Shelby, North Carolina. Workers produce jacquard
textile harnesses.
This investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not import studs in 2004, 2005 or January
through July, 2006, nor did it shift production to a foreign
country in those periods.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
declining customers regarding purchases of jacquard textile
harnesses during 2004, 2005 and January through July 2006 over the
corresponding 2005 period. The survey revealed customers did not
increase imports during the relevant period.
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 the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Baxter Corporation,
Shelby, North Carolina 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 28th day of August 2006
/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
1