Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 06/28/2007
Most Recent Update: 07/10/2007
Determination Date: 07/10/2007
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,760
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY
EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN
Notice of Negative Determination
on Remand
On November 6, 2007, 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 Hutchinson Technology v.
U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 07-335.
On June 21, 2007, a TAA Coordinator for the State of
Wisconsin filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of
workers and former workers at Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin (the subject facility) producing suspension assemblies
for disc drives(the subject worker group). Administrative Record
(AR) 1-3.
The Department's negative determination, issued on July 10,
2007 (72 41088, July 26, 2007), was based on findings that worker
separations at the subject facility were caused by declining
sales due to decreased exports and that the subject firm did not
import suspension assemblies for disc drives. AR 19.
On August 22, 2007, a former employee of the subject firm
(the petitioner) requested administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination. Supplemental Administrative Record (SAR)
28-30. In that request, the petitioner asserted that "the
decision made on July 10, 2007 was made in error because the U.S.
Department of Labor did not have all of the facts relevant to the
application." SAR 28. On September 28, 2007, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject
firm, because the Department determined that additional
information received from the petitioner concerning the subject
firm's customers merited investigation. The Department's Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on October
5, 2007 (72 FR 57070). SAR 34.
On September 7, 2007, while the request for reconsideration
was pending before the Department, the petitioner appealed the
denial of its petition to the USCIT. The appeal was based on the
same information that appeared in the request for
reconsideration. On November 6, 2007 the Department obtained a
voluntary remand of the USCIT proceeding so that the Department
could investigate the allegations and information provided by the
Plaintiff in the request for reconsideration.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner
acknowledged that "currently the majority of hard drive
suspensions are exported overseas". AR 29. However, the
requester also stated that the subject firm separated a
significant number of workers and that sales and production have
decreased during the relevant time period, and that this negative
impact was a direct result of the loss of the Argon product line
at the subject firm to a foreign competitor based in Singapore.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the Argon product line and the imports
impacting the subject firm. The petitioner did not have any
additional information and requested the Department to verify all
the information with the officials of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official clarified that Argon is the
name of a specific suspension assembly product that was
manufactured for a major customer headquartered in the United
States. The company official further confirmed that Argon product
line was lost to a foreign competitor, which resulted in declines
in total sales, production and employment at the subject firm.
SAR 36. The decline in sales to this customer represented nearly
the entire subject firm's total domestic sales decline. The
official also stated that Argon product line was specifically
sold and shipped to a customer's foreign subsidiary and was not
sold on the domestic market. SAR 39, 45. Therefore, the losses in
sales and production of Argon line and consequent decline in
employment at the subject firm are the direct result of the
decrease in exports.
The Department contacted the major domestic customer who
purchased the Argon-line products to confirm this information.
It was confirmed that this customer purchased these products for
export to a foreign subsidiary and no suspension assembly
products have been imported into the United States by this
customer. SAR 45,46,67.
The request for reconsideration further alleged that "the
majority of hard drive suspensions are exported overseas to be
assembled into computer hard drives and imported back into the
United States." SAR 29. The petitioner concluded that imported
finished products which contain foreign manufactured components
are like or directly competitive with imported finished products
containing components manufactured by the subject firm and
therefore, the subject firm should be considered import impacted.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with the
products manufactured by the petitioning worker group.
Suspension assemblies are components of computer hard drives,
which incorporate multiple components. Therefore, suspension
assemblies are not like or directly competitive with the computer
hard drives produced abroad and imported by the subject firm or
its customers. Accordingly, imports of computer hard drives are
not relevant in this investigation and increased imports of
computer hard drives cannot be the basis for certification of the
subject worker group. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local
834 v. Donovan, 592 F. Supp. 673, 677-679 (C.I.T. 1984).
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner further
alleged that Hutchinson Technology, Inc. shifted functions of the
microscope inspection labor to either Singapore, Thailand and/or
China via sub-contracting. SAR 29, 30.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the sorting functions. The petitioner
stated that sorting was not a part of the production process, but
is integrated into the production cost and that workers
performing these functions should be considered in support of
production. While uncertain, the petitioner conjectured that the
sorting functions had been shifted to Singapore but that the
Department should rely on information received from the officials
of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official stated that the subject firm
used its service center in Thailand to undertake inspection and
sorting and that some sorting functions have been shifted from
the subject firm to Thailand in the relevant time period. The
official also stated that workers performing sorting and
inspection functions do not produce suspension assemblies for
disk drives, but rather support production of all suspension
assemblies for disk drives. SAR 47, 66. The subject firm did not
shift production of suspension assemblies for disk drives abroad.
SAR 36.
Furthermore, Thailand is not a country that is a party to a
free trade agreement with the United States or a country that is
named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the
African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act. Any shift to Thailand cannot be the basis
for certification of the subject worker group.
During the initial phase of the reconsideration/remand
investigation, the Department contacted Plaintiff for additional
information and clarification of his allegations. Once Plaintiff
had retained Counsel, the parties filed a consent motion for a
30-day extension of the remand period so that Plaintiff's Counsel
had an opportunity to review the record and provide the
Department with comments and other pertinent information. That
motion was granted on December 12, 2007. The Counsel was provided
with the business confidential information from the initial
administrative record as well as with the material generated in
the reconsideration/remand investigation. While the investigator
contacted Plaintiff's Counsel to remind him of his opportunity,
the Department received no substantive input. SAR 68-70.
In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results
of its remand investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be
certified as eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers have
been denied certification for TAA, they cannot be certified for
ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of the remand
investigation, I affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Hutchinson
Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 18th day of January 2008.
/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-61,760
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY
EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN
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 June 28, 2007, in response
to a petition filed by a state representative on behalf of workers
of Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The workers
produced suspension assemblies for disk drives.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not shift production abroad, nor does it
import suspension assemblies for disk drives.
The investigation revealed that the majority of sales and
production are for the export market. Worker separations at the
subject facility are caused by declining sales due to reduced
exports.
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 during this
investigation, I determine that workers of Hutchinson Technology,
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 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 July 2007
/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,760
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY
EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN
Notice of Negative Determination
on Remand
On November 6, 2007, 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 Hutchinson Technology v.
U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 07-335.
On June 21, 2007, a TAA Coordinator for the State of
Wisconsin filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of
workers and former workers at Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin (the subject facility) producing suspension assemblies
for disc drives(the subject worker group). Administrative Record
(AR) 1-3.
The Department's negative determination, issued on July 10,
2007 (72 41088, July 26, 2007), was based on findings that worker
separations at the subject facility were caused by declining
sales due to decreased exports and that the subject firm did not
import suspension assemblies for disc drives. AR 19.
On August 22, 2007, a former employee of the subject firm
(the petitioner) requested administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination. Supplemental Administrative Record (SAR)
28-30. In that request, the petitioner asserted that "the
decision made on July 10, 2007 was made in error because the U.S.
Department of Labor did not have all of the facts relevant to the
application." SAR 28. On September 28, 2007, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject
firm, because the Department determined that additional
information received from the petitioner concerning the subject
firm's customers merited investigation. The Department's Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on October
5, 2007 (72 FR 57070). SAR 34.
On September 7, 2007, while the request for reconsideration
was pending before the Department, the petitioner appealed the
denial of its petition to the USCIT. The appeal was based on the
same information that appeared in the request for
reconsideration. On November 6, 2007 the Department obtained a
voluntary remand of the USCIT proceeding so that the Department
could investigate the allegations and information provided by the
Plaintiff in the request for reconsideration.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner
acknowledged that "currently the majority of hard drive
suspensions are exported overseas". AR 29. However, the
requester also stated that the subject firm separated a
significant number of workers and that sales and production have
decreased during the relevant time period, and that this negative
impact was a direct result of the loss of the Argon product line
at the subject firm to a foreign competitor based in Singapore.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the Argon product line and the imports
impacting the subject firm. The petitioner did not have any
additional information and requested the Department to verify all
the information with the officials of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official clarified that Argon is the
name of a specific suspension assembly product that was
manufactured for a major customer headquartered in the United
States. The company official further confirmed that Argon product
line was lost to a foreign competitor, which resulted in declines
in total sales, production and employment at the subject firm.
SAR 36. The decline in sales to this customer represented nearly
the entire subject firm's total domestic sales decline. The
official also stated that Argon product line was specifically
sold and shipped to a customer's foreign subsidiary and was not
sold on the domestic market. SAR 39, 45. Therefore, the losses in
sales and production of Argon line and consequent decline in
employment at the subject firm are the direct result of the
decrease in exports.
The Department contacted the major domestic customer who
purchased the Argon-line products to confirm this information.
It was confirmed that this customer purchased these products for
export to a foreign subsidiary and no suspension assembly
products have been imported into the United States by this
customer. SAR 45,46,67.
The request for reconsideration further alleged that "the
majority of hard drive suspensions are exported overseas to be
assembled into computer hard drives and imported back into the
United States." SAR 29. The petitioner concluded that imported
finished products which contain foreign manufactured components
are like or directly competitive with imported finished products
containing components manufactured by the subject firm and
therefore, the subject firm should be considered import impacted.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with the
products manufactured by the petitioning worker group.
Suspension assemblies are components of computer hard drives,
which incorporate multiple components. Therefore, suspension
assemblies are not like or directly competitive with the computer
hard drives produced abroad and imported by the subject firm or
its customers. Accordingly, imports of computer hard drives are
not relevant in this investigation and increased imports of
computer hard drives cannot be the basis for certification of the
subject worker group. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local
834 v. Donovan, 592 F. Supp. 673, 677-679 (C.I.T. 1984).
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner further
alleged that Hutchinson Technology, Inc. shifted functions of the
microscope inspection labor to either Singapore, Thailand and/or
China via sub-contracting. SAR 29, 30.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the sorting functions. The petitioner
stated that sorting was not a part of the production process, but
is integrated into the production cost and that workers
performing these functions should be considered in support of
production. While uncertain, the petitioner conjectured that the
sorting functions had been shifted to Singapore but that the
Department should rely on information received from the officials
of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official stated that the subject firm
used its service center in Thailand to undertake inspection and
sorting and that some sorting functions have been shifted from
the subject firm to Thailand in the relevant time period. The
official also stated that workers performing sorting and
inspection functions do not produce suspension assemblies for
disk drives, but rather support production of all suspension
assemblies for disk drives. SAR 47, 66. The subject firm did not
shift production of suspension assemblies for disk drives abroad.
SAR 36.
Furthermore, Thailand is not a country that is a party to a
free trade agreement with the United States or a country that is
named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the
African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act. Any shift to Thailand cannot be the basis
for certification of the subject worker group.
During the initial phase of the reconsideration/remand
investigation, the Department contacted Plaintiff for additional
information and clarification of his allegations. Once Plaintiff
had retained Counsel, the parties filed a consent motion for a
30-day extension of the remand period so that Plaintiff's Counsel
had an opportunity to review the record and provide the
Department with comments and other pertinent information. That
motion was granted on December 12, 2007. The Counsel was provided
with the business confidential information from the initial
administrative record as well as with the material generated in
the reconsideration/remand investigation. While the investigator
contacted Plaintiff's Counsel to remind him of his opportunity,
the Department received no substantive input. SAR 68-70.
In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results
of its remand investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be
certified as eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers have
been denied certification for TAA, they cannot be certified for
ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of the remand
investigation, I affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Hutchinson
Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 18th day of January 2008.
/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-61,760
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY
EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN
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 June 28, 2007, in response
to a petition filed by a state representative on behalf of workers
of Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The workers
produced suspension assemblies for disk drives.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not shift production abroad, nor does it
import suspension assemblies for disk drives.
The investigation revealed that the majority of sales and
production are for the export market. Worker separations at the
subject facility are caused by declining sales due to reduced
exports.
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 during this
investigation, I determine that workers of Hutchinson Technology,
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 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 July 2007
/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance