DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,305

SHOREWOOD PACKAGING
A BUSINESS UNIT OF INTERNATIONAL PAPER, INC.
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On January 26, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of
Shorewood Packaging, a business unit of International Paper,
Inc., Springfield, Oregon (the subject firm). The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2010
(75 FR 7030).
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 initial negative determination was based on the findings
that neither imports of articles like or directly competitive
with packaging produced by the subject firm nor a shift in
production to a foreign country by the subject firm contributed
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided
additional information and alleged that Shorewood Packaging
shifted overseas the production at Springfield, Oregon.
Information obtained from the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation clarified that the worker group was
part of the Home Entertainment group. The subject firm also
confirmed that production of Home Entertainment group articles were
not shifted overseas. Rather, production was shifted to facilities
located within the United States. Further, the articles produced
at foreign facilities are neither like nor directly competitive
with the Home Entertainment group packaging produced at the
Springfield, Oregon facility.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Shorewood
Packaging, a business unit of International Paper, Inc.,
Springfield, Oregon, on this 4th day of March, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,305

SHOREWOOD PACKAGING
A BUSINESS UNIT OF INTERNATIONAL PAPER
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 20, 2009 on behalf of workers of Shorewood Packaging,
a business unit of International Paper, Springfield, Oregon. The
workers produced paperboard packaging, primarily for the home
entertainment industry.
The petitioners allege that paperboard packaging production
was shifted abroad from the Springfield, Oregon facility. The
investigation included analysis of data collected from the subject
firm and its customers.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of the Springfield, Oregon facility did
not meet the criteria for certification.
The second criterion of this section has not been met because
there was no increase in imports, shift to a foreign country or
acquisition from a foreign country by the workers’ firm of articles
like or directly competitive with the paperboard packaging produced
at the Springfield, Oregon facility. The investigation revealed
that, although the firm has manufacturing plants located abroad, no
production was shifted to those facilities from Springfield,
Oregon. The paperboard packaging production in Springfield was
transferred to other company facilities in the United States.
In addition, a survey of customers of the subject firm
revealed that customers did not import articles like or directly
competitive with paperboard packaging for home entertainment in
2007, 2008 and January through February 2009.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of the Springfield, Oregon facility did
not meet the criteria for certification as secondarily affected
workers.
The second criterion of this section has not been met because
the workers did not produce an article or supply a service that was
used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an
article.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the ITC.

Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Shorewood Packaging, a
business unit of International Paper, Springfield, Oregon who
produced paperboard packaging are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 11th of December, 2009


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 7 -