Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 01/17/2008
Most Recent Update: 02/08/2008
Determination Date: 02/08/2008
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-62,698
BODYCOTE MATERIALS TESTING, INC.
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HILLSDALE, MICHIGAN
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 6, 2008, a 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 February 8, 2008
and published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2008 (73 FR
9836).
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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for
workers of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and
Technology Division, Hillsdale, Michigan was based on the finding
that the worker group does not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner states that services provided by workers at
the subject firm “are integral to the production of an
automobile”. The petitioner further states that the workers of
the subject firm “produce data (written certification) that is
used to determine if the product does meet the requirements.”
The petitioner alleges that because all manufacturers of
automotive products are required to test their products
independently using the services provided by such companies as
Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., workers of the subject firm who
provide the testing services should be certified eligible for
TAA.
The investigation revealed that the workers of Bodycote
Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division,
Hillsdale, Michigan are engaged in testing services to the
automotive, appliance, and general industrial markets. These
functions, as described above, are not considered production of
an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act.
Any incidental documents, such as written certifications,
generated as a result of testing of the equipment are incidental
to the services provided by the subject firm. The fact that a
written record is generated in the process does not make the
service firm a production firm and these documents do not
constitute production of an article for purposes of the Trade
Act.
The petitioner also states that Bodycote intends to move
jobs to Mexico and Canada.
The allegation of a shift to another country might be
relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm
produced an article. However, the investigation determined that
workers of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and
Technology Division, Hillsdale, Michigan do not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 26th day of March 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-62,698
BODYCOTE MATERIALS TESTING, INC.
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HILLSDALE, MICHIGAN
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 January 17, 2008, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Bodycote
Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division,
Hillsdale, Michigan. Workers are engaged in work related to
testing services to the automotive, appliance, and general
industrial markets.
The investigation revealed that Bodycote Materials Testing,
Inc., Engineering and Technology Division, Hillsdale, Michigan,
does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2)
of the Act. In order to be considered eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
the worker group seeking certification (or on whose behalf
certification is being sought) must work for a "firm" or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article and there must be
a relationship between the workers' work and the article produced
by the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision. The workers
performing testing services do not support a firm or appropriate
subdivision that produces an article domestically and thus the
worker group can not be considered import impacted or affected by a
shift in production of an article.
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, I determine that all workers of Bodycote
Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division,
Hillsdale, Michigan 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 8th day of February, 2008
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-62,698
BODYCOTE MATERIALS TESTING, INC.
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HILLSDALE, MICHIGAN
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 6, 2008, a 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 February 8, 2008
and published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2008 (73 FR
9836).
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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for
workers of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and
Technology Division, Hillsdale, Michigan was based on the finding
that the worker group does not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner states that services provided by workers at
the subject firm “are integral to the production of an
automobile”. The petitioner further states that the workers of
the subject firm “produce data (written certification) that is
used to determine if the product does meet the requirements.”
The petitioner alleges that because all manufacturers of
automotive products are required to test their products
independently using the services provided by such companies as
Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., workers of the subject firm who
provide the testing services should be certified eligible for
TAA.
The investigation revealed that the workers of Bodycote
Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division,
Hillsdale, Michigan are engaged in testing services to the
automotive, appliance, and general industrial markets. These
functions, as described above, are not considered production of
an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act.
Any incidental documents, such as written certifications,
generated as a result of testing of the equipment are incidental
to the services provided by the subject firm. The fact that a
written record is generated in the process does not make the
service firm a production firm and these documents do not
constitute production of an article for purposes of the Trade
Act.
The petitioner also states that Bodycote intends to move
jobs to Mexico and Canada.
The allegation of a shift to another country might be
relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm
produced an article. However, the investigation determined that
workers of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and
Technology Division, Hillsdale, Michigan do not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 26th day of March 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-62,698
BODYCOTE MATERIALS TESTING, INC.
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HILLSDALE, MICHIGAN
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 January 17, 2008, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Bodycote
Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division,
Hillsdale, Michigan. Workers are engaged in work related to
testing services to the automotive, appliance, and general
industrial markets.
The investigation revealed that Bodycote Materials Testing,
Inc., Engineering and Technology Division, Hillsdale, Michigan,
does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2)
of the Act. In order to be considered eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
the worker group seeking certification (or on whose behalf
certification is being sought) must work for a "firm" or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article and there must be
a relationship between the workers' work and the article produced
by the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision. The workers
performing testing services do not support a firm or appropriate
subdivision that produces an article domestically and thus the
worker group can not be considered import impacted or affected by a
shift in production of an article.
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, I determine that all workers of Bodycote
Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division,
Hillsdale, Michigan 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 8th day of February, 2008
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -