Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 07/09/2007
Most Recent Update: 08/15/2007
Determination Date: 08/15/2007
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,799
PERES PATTERN COMPANY
ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application postmarked September 26, 2007, a company
official 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 15, 2007 and published in the Federal
Register on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50126).
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 Peres Pattern Company, Erie,
Pennsylvania engaged in production of custom molds (i.e. wood,
metal and plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim molds,
vacuum molds and aluminum castings) was denied because the
“contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met.
The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated
through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining customers. The
survey revealed no imports of custom molds by declining customers
during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import
custom molds 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 who used items
manufactured by the subject firm as “unfinished goods” and
“tooling” for further production of plastic goods. The
petitioner alleges that customers of the subject firm which
manufacture plastic products decreased purchases of custom molds
from the subject firm because they choose to shift their
production abroad. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that
because sales and production of custom molds at the subject firm
have been negatively impacted by the customers shifting their
production of plastic products abroad, 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 custom molds during 2005, 2006 and January through
June 2007 over the corresponding 2006 period. The survey
revealed that the declining customers did not import custom molds
during the relevant period.
Imports of plastic products cannot be considered like or
directly competitive with custom molds produced by Peres Pattern
Company, Erie, Pennsylvania and imports of plastic products are
not relevant in this investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers are shifting their
production abroad is not relevant to this investigation. The
shift in production must be administered by the subject firm in
order for workers of the subject firm to be considered eligible
for TAA.
The petitioner further states that in order to reveal the
import impact, the Department should investigate the time period
prior to 2005. Furthermore, the petitioner attached a list of
declining customers from 1988 to present.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time
period (one year prior to the date of the petition). The
customers of the subject firm were surveyed regarding their
purchases of custom molds during the relevant time period. The
survey revealed no imports of custom molds during the relevant
time period.
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 11th day of October, 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-61,799
PERES PATTERN COMPANY
ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA
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 July 9, 2007, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of the workers of Peres Pattern
Company, Erie, Pennsylvania. The workers are engaged in the
production of custom molds (i.e. wood, metal and plastic patterns,
blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds and vacuum molds
and aluminum castings).
The investigation determined that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met for workers of the subject firm.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of custom molds (i.e. wood, metal and plastic patterns,
blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds and vacuum molds
and aluminum castings) from the Erie, Pennsylvania facility to a
foreign country.
Furthermore, the subject firm does not import custom molds.
The Department of Labor surveyed the major declining customers
of the subject firm regarding their purchases of custom molds (i.e.
wood, metal and plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim
molds, vacuum molds and vacuum molds and aluminum castings) in
2005, 2006, and in January through June 2007. The surveys revealed
that that the customers did not purchase imports of wood, metal and
plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds
and vacuum molds and aluminum castings during the relevant period.
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 workers of Peres
Pattern Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, 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 15th day of August, 2007.
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 4 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,799
PERES PATTERN COMPANY
ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application postmarked September 26, 2007, a company
official 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 15, 2007 and published in the Federal
Register on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50126).
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 Peres Pattern Company, Erie,
Pennsylvania engaged in production of custom molds (i.e. wood,
metal and plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim molds,
vacuum molds and aluminum castings) was denied because the
“contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met.
The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated
through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining customers. The
survey revealed no imports of custom molds by declining customers
during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import
custom molds 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 who used items
manufactured by the subject firm as “unfinished goods” and
“tooling” for further production of plastic goods. The
petitioner alleges that customers of the subject firm which
manufacture plastic products decreased purchases of custom molds
from the subject firm because they choose to shift their
production abroad. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that
because sales and production of custom molds at the subject firm
have been negatively impacted by the customers shifting their
production of plastic products abroad, 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 custom molds during 2005, 2006 and January through
June 2007 over the corresponding 2006 period. The survey
revealed that the declining customers did not import custom molds
during the relevant period.
Imports of plastic products cannot be considered like or
directly competitive with custom molds produced by Peres Pattern
Company, Erie, Pennsylvania and imports of plastic products are
not relevant in this investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers are shifting their
production abroad is not relevant to this investigation. The
shift in production must be administered by the subject firm in
order for workers of the subject firm to be considered eligible
for TAA.
The petitioner further states that in order to reveal the
import impact, the Department should investigate the time period
prior to 2005. Furthermore, the petitioner attached a list of
declining customers from 1988 to present.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time
period (one year prior to the date of the petition). The
customers of the subject firm were surveyed regarding their
purchases of custom molds during the relevant time period. The
survey revealed no imports of custom molds during the relevant
time period.
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 11th day of October, 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-61,799
PERES PATTERN COMPANY
ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA
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 July 9, 2007, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of the workers of Peres Pattern
Company, Erie, Pennsylvania. The workers are engaged in the
production of custom molds (i.e. wood, metal and plastic patterns,
blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds and vacuum molds
and aluminum castings).
The investigation determined that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met for workers of the subject firm.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of custom molds (i.e. wood, metal and plastic patterns,
blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds and vacuum molds
and aluminum castings) from the Erie, Pennsylvania facility to a
foreign country.
Furthermore, the subject firm does not import custom molds.
The Department of Labor surveyed the major declining customers
of the subject firm regarding their purchases of custom molds (i.e.
wood, metal and plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim
molds, vacuum molds and vacuum molds and aluminum castings) in
2005, 2006, and in January through June 2007. The surveys revealed
that that the customers did not purchase imports of wood, metal and
plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds
and vacuum molds and aluminum castings during the relevant period.
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 workers of Peres
Pattern Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, 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 15th day of August, 2007.
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 4 -