Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 04/12/2007
Most Recent Update: 05/10/2007
Determination Date: 05/10/2007
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,293
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORRUGATED NUMBER 1 LLC
a.k.a. GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORPORATION
RIDGEWAY, VIRGINIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 6, 2007, the petitioner 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 May 10, 2007 and
published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29182).
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 Georgia Pacific Corrugated
Number 1 LLC, a.k.a. Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation,
Ridgeway, Virginia engaged in production of corrugated packaging
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 2005, 2006 and January through
March of 2007. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
customers. The survey revealed no imports of corrugated
packaging by declining customers during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import corrugated packaging nor 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 and
furniture industry. The petitioner alleges that customers of the
subject firm which manufacture textile products and furniture
decreased purchases of corrugated packaging from the subject firm
because their business was in its turn negatively impacted by
increased imports of textiles and furniture. As a result,
several of the customers were certified eligible for TAA.
Therefore, the petitioner concludes that because sales and
production of corrugated packaging at the subject firm have been
negatively impacted by the closure of other businesses in the
area and by increasing presence of foreign imports of textile
products and furniture 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 customer regarding their
purchases of corrugated packaging. The survey revealed that the
declining customers did not increase their imports of corrugated
packaging during the relevant period.
Imports of textiles and furniture cannot be considered like
or directly competitive with corrugated packaging produced by
Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1, LLC, Ridgeway, Virginia and
imports of textiles and furniture are not relevant in this
investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers were certified for
TAA 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’ certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an
upstream supplier, because corrugated packaging does not form a
component part of textile products and furniture. 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 in Washington, D.C., this 20th day of June, 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-61,293
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORRUGATED NUMBER 1 LLC
a.k.a. GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORPORATION
RIDGEWAY, VIRGINIA
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 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 April 12, 2007 in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Georgia
Pacific Corrugated Number 1 LLC, also know as Great Northern
Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, Virginia. The workers produced
corrugated packaging.
The investigation revealed that criteria I.C. and II.B. have
not been met.
The subject firm did not import products like or directly
competitive with corrugated packaging, nor shift production
abroad during the relevant period.
The Department of Labor conducted a survey of the subject
firm’s reported declining customers regarding their purchases of
corrugated packaging in 2006 over the corresponding 2005 period
and during the January through March 2007 period over the
corresponding January through March 2006 period. The survey
revealed that none of the respondents increased imports of
corrugated packaging while reducing their domestic purchases of
corrugated packaging 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 assis-
tance (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
Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1 LLC, also know as Great
Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, Virginia 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 10th day of May, 2007.
/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
1
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,293
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORRUGATED NUMBER 1 LLC
a.k.a. GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORPORATION
RIDGEWAY, VIRGINIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 6, 2007, the petitioner 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 May 10, 2007 and
published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29182).
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 Georgia Pacific Corrugated
Number 1 LLC, a.k.a. Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation,
Ridgeway, Virginia engaged in production of corrugated packaging
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 2005, 2006 and January through
March of 2007. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
customers. The survey revealed no imports of corrugated
packaging by declining customers during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import corrugated packaging nor 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 and
furniture industry. The petitioner alleges that customers of the
subject firm which manufacture textile products and furniture
decreased purchases of corrugated packaging from the subject firm
because their business was in its turn negatively impacted by
increased imports of textiles and furniture. As a result,
several of the customers were certified eligible for TAA.
Therefore, the petitioner concludes that because sales and
production of corrugated packaging at the subject firm have been
negatively impacted by the closure of other businesses in the
area and by increasing presence of foreign imports of textile
products and furniture 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 customer regarding their
purchases of corrugated packaging. The survey revealed that the
declining customers did not increase their imports of corrugated
packaging during the relevant period.
Imports of textiles and furniture cannot be considered like
or directly competitive with corrugated packaging produced by
Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1, LLC, Ridgeway, Virginia and
imports of textiles and furniture are not relevant in this
investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers were certified for
TAA 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’ certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an
upstream supplier, because corrugated packaging does not form a
component part of textile products and furniture. 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 in Washington, D.C., this 20th day of June, 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-61,293
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORRUGATED NUMBER 1 LLC
a.k.a. GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORPORATION
RIDGEWAY, VIRGINIA
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 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 April 12, 2007 in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Georgia
Pacific Corrugated Number 1 LLC, also know as Great Northern
Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, Virginia. The workers produced
corrugated packaging.
The investigation revealed that criteria I.C. and II.B. have
not been met.
The subject firm did not import products like or directly
competitive with corrugated packaging, nor shift production
abroad during the relevant period.
The Department of Labor conducted a survey of the subject
firm’s reported declining customers regarding their purchases of
corrugated packaging in 2006 over the corresponding 2005 period
and during the January through March 2007 period over the
corresponding January through March 2006 period. The survey
revealed that none of the respondents increased imports of
corrugated packaging while reducing their domestic purchases of
corrugated packaging 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 assis-
tance (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
Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1 LLC, also know as Great
Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, Virginia 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 10th day of May, 2007.
/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
1