U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,503

COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.
CANTEEN
WEBSTER CITY, IOWA

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated July 9, 2010, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination
regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The determination was signed on May 24, 2010, and
the Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register
on June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34175).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that the subject firm did not, during the
investigation period, shift to a foreign county services like or
directly competitive with the cafeteria services or vending machine
services supplied by the workers or acquire from a foreign country
services like or directly competitive with the cafeteria services
or vending machine services supplied by the workers; that the
workers’ separation, or threat of separation, was not related to
any increase in imports of like or directly competitive food
services or a shift in service/acquisition of such food services
abroad, and that the workers did not 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.
The request for reconsideration stated that the subject
workers provide “food services in direct support of Electrolux” and
alleges that the shift of production by Electrolux to Mexico
resulted in a shift to Mexico in the supply of food service
services. The request also alleges that, in the case of adversely-
affected secondary workers, the term “value-added” applies only to
production process and does not apply to services.
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 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 21st day of September 2010
/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-73,503

COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.
CANTEEN
WEBSTER CITY, IOWA

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 February 18, 2010 by the Iowa State Workforce Office on
behalf of workers of Compass Group USA, Inc., Canteen, Webster
City, Iowa (Canteen). The workers are engaged in activities
related to food services.
The investigation included contact and requests of
information from Canteen.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criteria II and III have not been met.
Criterion II has not been met because there was no increase
in imports by the firm or customer nor was there a shift or
acquisition to a foreign country by the firm. Canteen did not
import services like or directly competitive with food services
from 2008 to 2009 and during the first month of 2010 over the
corresponding 2009 period. Canteen only has one customer, and the
services are provided on-site at the customer location.
Criterion III has not been met because the worker
separations or threat of separation was not related to an
increase in imports or a shift or acquisition of a service from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers
did not produce an article or supply a service that was used in a
firm’s production of an article that was the basis of a TAA-
Certification.
The Iowa State Workforce Office, on behalf of the workers of
Canteen, alleged that a loss of business to a TAA-Certified firm
contributed importantly to the worker separations. Although
Canteen is on-site at the TAA-certified firm and provided
services to the TAA-Certified firm, the services that Canteen
provided are not in support of production of an article that was
the basis for TAA-Certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the investigation revealed that the workers firm has
not been identified in an affirmative finding of injury by the
International Trade Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Compass Group USA,
Inc., Canteen, Webster City, Iowa who are engaged in activities
related to food 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 24th day of May, 2010

/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 7 -