DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,479A

ENESCO, LLC
ITASCO, ILLINOIS

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On October 18, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Enesco,
LLC, Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison, New Jersey
(Enesco-Edison). The Department’s Notice was published in the
Federal Register on October 29, 2010 (75 FR 66795). The workers
supplied packaging and distribution services related to giftware.
The initial investigation was initiated in response to a
petition filed on February 17, 2010 by a State of Illinois
Workforce Office on behalf of workers of Enesco, LLC, Itasca,
Illinois. The petition alleges that “Enesco LLC production of
giftware products is currently in China; the company has
transferred Quality/Regulatory Compliance Department overseas as
well in order to keep production and quality assurance testing in
one location.”
Because the petitioner did not provide additional information
regarding the worker group, the Department relied on publicly-
available materials and the company official identified on the
petition for information.
Although the company’s headquarters are in Itasca, Illinois,
the company official provided information that revealed that the
separated workers worked in the distribution center that was part
of the Gund Division in Edison, New Jersey (TA-W-73,479). Based on
this information, the Department determined that the subject worker
group was not Enesco LLC, Itasca, Illinois but Enesco-Edison.
In the request for reconsideration, the State Workforce
Office stated that a worker who was in the “Regulatory
Compliance/Quality Assurance Department of Enseco, LLC, located in
Itasca, Illinois” had “spent over 6 hours on the conference call
with China, training someone to perform her duties.” The State
Workforce Office further alleges that “all of the Regulatory
Compliance/Quality Assurance Department of Enseco LLC was
transferred to Hong Kong.” In support of the allegations, the State
Workforce Office provided a document titled “Letter to supplier
regarding QA & QC” that states “We have expanded our team both in
China as well as in our Hong Kong office” (dated March 6, 2009).
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 Enesco-Edison did not shift to/acquire from a foreign country
the supply of services like or directly competitive with the
services supplied by the workers; that the workers’ separation, or
threat of separation, was not related to an increase in imports of
like or directly competitive services; and that the workers are not
adversely affected secondary workers.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
contacted Enesco, LLC and obtained information regarding Enesco,
LLC, Itasca, Illinois (Enesco-Itasca) and the worker on whose
behalf the petition and request for reconsideration were filed.
New information provided by the subject firm revealed that
there is no Regulatory Compliance/Quality Assurance Department;
that workers at Enesco-Itasca are separately identifiable by
division and separately identifiable within each division by
service supplied; and that the worker on whose behalf the
petition and the request for reconsideration were filed worked in
the logistics division of Enesco-Itasca and supplied quality
control services related to the production of toys. Further,
Enesco-Itasca does not produce toys; rather, Enesco-Itasca
supplies services related to the sales, marketing and development
of toys.
Additional information obtained during the reconsideration
investigation revealed that the group eligibility requirements
under Section 222(a) and (c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and
(c), have not been met. 29 CFR 90.2 states that a significant
number or proportion of the workers means at least three workers
in a firm (or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a workforce
of fewer than 50 workers, or five percent of the workers or 50
workers, whichever is less, in a workforce of 50 or more workers.
Although the Department was able to confirm separations at
the Itasca, Illinois facility, the number or proportion of
workers totally or partially separated, or threatened with such
separation, at Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois, does not meet the
regulatory definition.
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 Enesco,
LLC, Itasca, Illinois (TA-W-73,479A).
Signed in Washington, D.C., on this 2nd day of May, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,479

ENESCO, LLC
GUND DIVISION
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
EDISON, NEW JERSEY


Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated October 5, 2010, by an Illinois state
workforce official requested administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former
workers of Enesco, LLC, Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison,
New Jersey (subject firm). The determination was issued on August
27, 2010. The Department’s Notice of Determination was published in
the Federal Register on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56144). The
workers are engaged in activities related to the supply of
packaging and distribution services related to giftware products.
The negative determination was based on the findings that the
subject firm did not, during the period under investigation, shift
to a foreign country the supply of services like or directly
competitive with the services performed by the workers or acquire
these services from a foreign country; that the workers’
separation, or threat of separation, was not related to any
increase in imports of like or directly competitive services; and
that the workers did not produce an article or supply a service
that was directly used in the production of an article or the
supply of service by a firm that employed a worker group that is
eligible to apply for TAA based on the aforementioned article or
service.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated
that the petition was filed on behalf of a worker who worked
within a separate department at a separate location and that the
services performed by the aforementioned department and location
have shifted to a foreign country.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 18th day of October 2010


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,479

ENESCO, LLC
GUND DIVISION
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
EDISON, NEW JERSERY

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 (ITC) 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 February 17, 2010 by a State Workforce Office on behalf of
workers of Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois. The petition alleges
that “Enesco LLC production of giftware products is currently in
China; the company has transferred Quality/Regulatory Compliance
Department overseas as well in order to keep production and quality
assurance testing in one location.”
Because the petitioner did not provide additional information,
the Department relied on publicly-available materials and the
company official identified on the petition for information. The
information revealed that the company does not manufacture any
products but are engaged in packaging and distribution of giftware
products, figurines and collectable dolls for the giftware, and
home and garden décor industries. Further, although the company’s
headquarters are in Itasca, Illinois, the separated workers worked
in the distribution center that was part of the Gund Division in
Edison, New Jersey.
The Department has determined that the subject worker group is
not Enesco LLC, Itasca, Illinois but is Enesco, LLC, Gund Division,
Distribution Center, Edison, New Jersey. Workers at Enesco, LLC,
Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison, New Jersey, are engaged
in employment related to the supply of packaging and distribution
services related to giftware products.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Enesco, LLC, Gund Division, Distribution
Center, Edison, New Jersey, who are engaged in employment related
to the supply of packaging and distribution services, do not meet
the criteria for certification.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion II has not been met because Enesco
neither imported nor shifted to/acquired from another country
services like or directly competitive with the packaging and
distribution services supplied by the workers of Enesco, LLC,
Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison, New Jersey.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because Enesco, LLC,
Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison, New Jersey did not
supply a service that was used by a firm with a worker group
certified eligibly to apply for TAA and was directly used in the
production of the article that was the basis for the TAA
certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been met because
Enesco LLC 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 Enesco, LLC, Gund
Division, Distribution Center, Edison, New Jersey, who were engaged
in the supply of packaging and distribution services, 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 27th day of August, 2010

/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




- 2 -