Petitioner Type: Company
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 11/12/2008
Most Recent Update: 01/06/2009
Determination Date: 01/06/2009
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-64,393
NIKKO AMERICA
PLANO, TEXAS
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated January 22, 2009, 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on January 6, 2009 and
published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2009 (74 FR
5871).
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 filed on behalf of workers at Nikko
America, Plano, Texas 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 in the request for reconsideration contends
that the Department erred in its interpretation of the work
performed by the workers of the subject firm. The petitioner
stated that workers of the subject firm “were responsible for
final assembly of some products”, including “putting batteries in
the boxes where the toys were already located and placing decal
stickers on the toys, taping them back up and distributing these
products”. The petitioner further stated that Nikko decreased
production of toys in 2008 and decided to import products
directly to consumers bypassing the distribution center.
The investigation revealed that workers of Nikko America,
Plano, Texas were engaged in warehousing, sales, distribution and
service of radio controlled toys during the relevant period. No
articles were produced by Nikko America in the United States.
The subject firm imported all the products from subsidiaries of
its parent company abroad. The investigation revealed that
workers performed some light repair functions of products,
repackaged and shipped imported products, provided customer
service and performed warehousing services. The functions, as
described above, are not considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. While the
provision of warehousing and distribution services may result in
repair and repackaging of the products, it is incidental to the
provision of these services. No production took place at the
subject facility nor did the workers support production of an
article at any domestic affiliated location during the relevant
period.
The petitioner alleges that increased imports of toys
negatively impacted workers at the subject facility.
The allegation of the increase in imports of toys would have
been relevant, if it was determined that workers of the subject
firm manufactured toys. The workers were engaged in warehousing,
sales and distribution of imported products. Therefore, increase
in imports of toys is irrelevant to this investigation.
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 at Washington, D.C., this 2nd day of March, 2009
/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-64,393
NIKKO AMERICA
PLANO, TEXAS
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 investigation was initiated on November 12, 2008, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Nikko America,
Plano, Texas. Workers at the subject firm were engaged in the
warehousing and distribution of remote control toy cars, boats, and
trucks.
The investigation revealed that Nikko America, Plano, Texas,
did 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 warehouse and
distribution workers described above do not support a firm or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically, and
thus the worker group cannot 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 of the facts obtained in this
investigation, I determine that all workers of Nikko America,
Plano, Texas, 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 at Washington, D.C., this 6th day of January 2009
/s/Linda G. Poole
________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 6 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-64,393
NIKKO AMERICA
PLANO, TEXAS
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated January 22, 2009, 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on January 6, 2009 and
published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2009 (74 FR
5871).
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 filed on behalf of workers at Nikko
America, Plano, Texas 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 in the request for reconsideration contends
that the Department erred in its interpretation of the work
performed by the workers of the subject firm. The petitioner
stated that workers of the subject firm “were responsible for
final assembly of some products”, including “putting batteries in
the boxes where the toys were already located and placing decal
stickers on the toys, taping them back up and distributing these
products”. The petitioner further stated that Nikko decreased
production of toys in 2008 and decided to import products
directly to consumers bypassing the distribution center.
The investigation revealed that workers of Nikko America,
Plano, Texas were engaged in warehousing, sales, distribution and
service of radio controlled toys during the relevant period. No
articles were produced by Nikko America in the United States.
The subject firm imported all the products from subsidiaries of
its parent company abroad. The investigation revealed that
workers performed some light repair functions of products,
repackaged and shipped imported products, provided customer
service and performed warehousing services. The functions, as
described above, are not considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. While the
provision of warehousing and distribution services may result in
repair and repackaging of the products, it is incidental to the
provision of these services. No production took place at the
subject facility nor did the workers support production of an
article at any domestic affiliated location during the relevant
period.
The petitioner alleges that increased imports of toys
negatively impacted workers at the subject facility.
The allegation of the increase in imports of toys would have
been relevant, if it was determined that workers of the subject
firm manufactured toys. The workers were engaged in warehousing,
sales and distribution of imported products. Therefore, increase
in imports of toys is irrelevant to this investigation.
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 at Washington, D.C., this 2nd day of March, 2009
/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-64,393
NIKKO AMERICA
PLANO, TEXAS
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 investigation was initiated on November 12, 2008, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Nikko America,
Plano, Texas. Workers at the subject firm were engaged in the
warehousing and distribution of remote control toy cars, boats, and
trucks.
The investigation revealed that Nikko America, Plano, Texas,
did 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 warehouse and
distribution workers described above do not support a firm or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically, and
thus the worker group cannot 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 of the facts obtained in this
investigation, I determine that all workers of Nikko America,
Plano, Texas, 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 at Washington, D.C., this 6th day of January 2009
/s/Linda G. Poole
________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 6 -