DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,536

TOWER AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS
GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS

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 investigation was initiated on December 5, 2007, in
response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on
behalf of workers of Tower Automotive Operations, Granite City,
Illinois.
The workers of the subject firm producing automotive stampings
and welded assemblies were certified eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under petition number TA-W-57,528, issued on
August 11, 2005. All workers of Tower Automotive, Inc., Granite
City, Illinois, separated from employment on or after July 5, 2004
through August 11, 2007, qualified as secondarily affected workers
and were covered by that certification. The petition certification
for the workers of the primary firm for which Tower Automotive
workers were deemed secondarily affected was Ford Motor Company in
Hazelwood, Missouri, TA-W-55,808, which expired on November 23,
2006.
The State agency indicated that the basis for seeking
certification was a shift in production by the workers' firm to a
foreign country and elaborated that the expired certification
covered 350 of the approximately 360 employees at the subject firm,
and an estimated 4 of the original plant employees were separated
November 30, 2007.
This petition investigation determined that the vast majority
of workers at Tower Automotive in Granite City, Illinois, were
separated from employment when all production ceased on October 31,
2006. Furthermore, the subject firm had no sales of either
stampings or welded assemblies after production ceased on October
31, 2006. The subject firm did not import stampings or welded
assemblies or shift production of these articles to a foreign
facility. The remaining employees were kept on to dismantle
equipment, clean up the site and get the facility ready for sale or
demolition.
In order to be certified as eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker
group must work for a firm or appropriate subdivision that produces
an article domestically, and there must be a relationship between
the workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm or
appropriate subdivision. Further, certification may be made on one
of three bases: There was an increase in imports (Section
223(a)(2)(A)); there was a shift in production (Section
223(a)(2)(B)); or the workers were adversely affected secondary
workers (Section 223(b)).
The first basis for certification requires, under Section
223(a)(2)(A)(ii), that "imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased." "Increased imports," defined at 29 CFR 97.2, means
"that imports have increased either absolutely or relative to
domestic production compared to a representative base period. The
representative base period shall be one year consisting of the four
quarters immediately preceding the date which is twelve months
prior to the date of the petition." Accordingly, the
"representative base period" here was the four quarters running
from December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006.
Thus, for there to be increased imports as required by Section
221(a)(2)(A)(ii), imports would have had to increase "compared to"
the period December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006. Further,
Section 221(A)(2)(A)(iii) requires that the increased imports
"contributed importantly . . . to the decline in the sales or
production of" the firm or subdivision. However, since all
production at the workers' firm ceased on October 31, 2006 during
the representative base period, any subsequent increase in imports
"compared to" that base period could not have "contributed
importantly . . . to the decline in the sales or production of" the
firm or subdivision. In other words, since production stopped
before the end of the representative base period, any subsequent
increase in imports "compared to" this period could not have had
any effect whatsoever on the subject firm's already stopped
production. Accordingly, the petition cannot be certified under
Section 222(a)(2)(A).
Further, the absence of a shift in production by Tower
Automotive Operations precludes certification on the second basis.
Lastly, the workers cannot be certified as adversely affected
secondary workers, the third basis for certification. A
certification as secondary workers must, under Section 223(b)(2),
be based on the certification of a primary firm. As noted above,
the workers were originally certified as adversely affected workers
on the basis of the certification of the primary firm, Ford Motor
Company in Hazelwood, Missouri. The original secondary
certification of the Tower Automotive workers expired on August 11,
2007. A second certification of the Tower Automotive workers as
secondary workers beyond that date would require another primary
certification. Since the Ford certification on which the original
Tower certification was based expired on November 23, 2006, there
is no primary certification on which to rely, and thus, there is no
basis for a second certification as secondary 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
All workers of Tower Automotive Operations, Granite City,
Illinois, 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 20th day of February 2008


/s/Linda G. Poole
_____________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance