Petitioner Type: Company
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 07/20/2007
Most Recent Update: 08/03/2007
Determination Date: 08/03/2007
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,852
SCHNADIG CORPORATION
MONTOURSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated September 3, 2007, a petitioner
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on August 3, 2007
and published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45451).
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 TAA petition, which was filed on behalf of workers at
Schnadig Corporation, Montoursville, Pennsylvania engaged in the
production of lawn and garden products, was denied based on the
findings that during the relevant time period, the subject
company did not separate or threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers, as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that because he was a part of the initially certified worker
group and remained employed by the subject firm after all the
production stopped and beyond the expiration date of the original
TAA certification, he should be also eligible for TAA.
The workers of the subject firm were previously certified
eligible for TAA (TA–W-55,198). This certification expired on
July 15, 2006. The investigation revealed that production at
the subject firm ceased in August of 2004.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers the relevant employment data (for one year
prior to the date of the petition and any imminent layoffs) for
the facility where the petitioning worker group was employed. In
this case, the employment since the expiration of the previous
certification was considered. The subject firm did not separate
or threaten to separate a significant number of proportion of
workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or
appropriate subdivision means at least three workers in a
workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five percent of the workers
in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at least 50 workers.
Moreover, in its investigation, the Department considers
production that occurred one year prior to the date of the
petition as required in the Trade Adjustment Assistance
regulations. Thus the period ending in 2004 is outside of the
relevant period as established by the current petition date of
July 12, 2007. The investigation revealed that the subject
facility did not manufacture articles since 2004 and workers of
the subject firm were not engaged in production of an article or
supporting production of the article during the relevant time
period. The Department further found that no new information was
provided to contradict the original negative findings.
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 September, 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-61,852
SCHNADIG CORPORATION
MONTOURSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
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 July 20, 2007 in response
to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of
Schnadig Corporation, Montoursville, Pennsylvania. Workers at the
subject firm produced upholstered furniture.
Workers of the subject firm were certified eligible to apply
for trade adjustment assistance under petition number TA-W-55,198,
which expired on July 15, 2006.
The current investigation revealed that criteria
(a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) have not been met.
The subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of workers as required by Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of
the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision means at least
three workers in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five percent
of the workers in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at least 50
workers.
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 this
investigation, I determine that all workers of Schnadig
Corporation, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, are denied eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act
of 1974, and alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 3rd day of August 2007
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 5 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,852
SCHNADIG CORPORATION
MONTOURSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated September 3, 2007, a petitioner
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on August 3, 2007
and published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45451).
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 TAA petition, which was filed on behalf of workers at
Schnadig Corporation, Montoursville, Pennsylvania engaged in the
production of lawn and garden products, was denied based on the
findings that during the relevant time period, the subject
company did not separate or threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers, as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that because he was a part of the initially certified worker
group and remained employed by the subject firm after all the
production stopped and beyond the expiration date of the original
TAA certification, he should be also eligible for TAA.
The workers of the subject firm were previously certified
eligible for TAA (TA–W-55,198). This certification expired on
July 15, 2006. The investigation revealed that production at
the subject firm ceased in August of 2004.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers the relevant employment data (for one year
prior to the date of the petition and any imminent layoffs) for
the facility where the petitioning worker group was employed. In
this case, the employment since the expiration of the previous
certification was considered. The subject firm did not separate
or threaten to separate a significant number of proportion of
workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or
appropriate subdivision means at least three workers in a
workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five percent of the workers
in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at least 50 workers.
Moreover, in its investigation, the Department considers
production that occurred one year prior to the date of the
petition as required in the Trade Adjustment Assistance
regulations. Thus the period ending in 2004 is outside of the
relevant period as established by the current petition date of
July 12, 2007. The investigation revealed that the subject
facility did not manufacture articles since 2004 and workers of
the subject firm were not engaged in production of an article or
supporting production of the article during the relevant time
period. The Department further found that no new information was
provided to contradict the original negative findings.
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 September, 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-61,852
SCHNADIG CORPORATION
MONTOURSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
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 July 20, 2007 in response
to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of
Schnadig Corporation, Montoursville, Pennsylvania. Workers at the
subject firm produced upholstered furniture.
Workers of the subject firm were certified eligible to apply
for trade adjustment assistance under petition number TA-W-55,198,
which expired on July 15, 2006.
The current investigation revealed that criteria
(a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) have not been met.
The subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of workers as required by Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of
the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision means at least
three workers in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five percent
of the workers in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at least 50
workers.
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 this
investigation, I determine that all workers of Schnadig
Corporation, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, are denied eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act
of 1974, and alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 3rd day of August 2007
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 5 -