DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-75,090

WAUSAU DAILY HERALD
ADVERTISING PRODUCTION DIVISION
A SUBSIDIARY OF GANNETT CO., INC.
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On March 18, 2011, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former workers of Wausau Daily Herald,
Advertising Production Division, a Subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.,
Wausau, Wisconsin (subject firm). The Department’s Notice was
published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2011 (76 FR 17446).
Workers were engaged in employment related to the supply of graphic
design services for newspaper advertisements.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that, during the relevant period, the subject
firm did not shift to/acquire from a foreign country services like
or directly competitive with the graphic design work supplied at
the subject firm, or import these services from a foreign country.
The Department collected information that revealed that worker
group separations at the subject firm were attributable to a
domestic shift of operations.
In the March 1, 2011 request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that “ads submitted to 2SdPro, India”
demonstrate that “Gannett is outsourcing ads in order to reduce the
workforce.” The petitioner also asserts that attachments to the
petition support the allegation of a shift of services to India.
Several of the attachments are printouts of articles from
Gannettoid.com, which is a Website that is not affiliated with
Gannett Company, Inc.
The petition attachments consist of:
* a January 4, 2011 letter from the petitioner that states, in
part, “in April of 2010” a portion of all online ads were sent
to 2Adpro, that the “consolidation enables Gannett to
eliminate all graphic artist positions at all Gannett daily
newspapers (10 sites in Wisconsin) by outsourcing ads, and
that the “ad centers in Des Moines, IA and Indianapolis, IN
are centers in which all the ads flow through . . . then . . .
sent to 2AdPro in India”;
* an August 5, 2010 separation notification letter;
* a document titled “Articles explaining Gannett action in
reducing Ad Services Staff in all Gannett sites in the US”;
* a November 23, 2009 “Gannettoid” article titled “Tentative
rollout schedule set for GPCs”;
* an August 20, 2009 “Gannettoid” article titled “Ad Centers
lead to cuts, big savings”;
* a September 2, 2009 “Gannettoid” article titled “Company
confirms RABC reports”;
* an August 27, 2009 “Gannettoid” article titled “When will GCI
confirm consolidation?”;
* an August 17, 2009 “Gannettoid” article titled “Ad production
plans include layoffs”;
* a December 8, 2010 press release from Gannett;
* a June 6, 2008 article on http://ashvegas.squarespace.com
titled “Citizen-Times outsourcing jobs to India?”;
* screenshots of a “job order list” from “Zaapro Jobdirect” with
a handwritten note “ads sent to 2AdPro India while still
working at Wausau Daily Herald. From Wausau to India”
(referenced in the January 4, 2011 letter);
* a list of newspapers or Gannett affiliates, with contact
information (referenced in the January 4, 2011 letter); and
* an undated “Gannettoid” article titled “Tracking layoffs” with
a handwritten note “See page 10 for Wisconsin.”
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
carefully reviewed information previously submitted from Gannett
Co., Inc. and the petitioning worker group as well as information
provided in the request for reconsideration and additional
information submitted by the State of Wisconsin Dislocated Worker
Program case manager assigned to the petitioner.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department also
collected new information from Gannett Co., Inc. regarding domestic
and foreign operations in order to address the allegations and
obtained clarification of previously-submitted information.
A careful review of previously-submitted information revealed
that 2AdPro (an advertising firm located in India) handled an
insignificant amount of overflow work for the subject firm and that
the work that was transferred from the subject worker group in
October 2010 was shifted to the Gannett Production Center and not
to 2AdPro and that the plan to create the Gannett Production Center
(GPC) dates back to October 2007.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that workers and former workers of Wausau Daily Herald,
Advertising Production Division, a Subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.,
Wausau, Wisconsin (subject worker group) performed advertising
production work on computers for print and on-line publications,
that advertising publication at the subject firm was consolidated
into a Gannett corporate operation located in Des Moines, Iowa and
Indianapolis, India in October 2010, that the corporate operation
is known as the Gannett Production Center (GPC), and that workers
who chose not to transfer to the GPC were separated.
New information obtained during the reconsideration
investigation revealed that the contract between Gannett Co., Inc.
and 2AdPro existed from September 2006 through March 2011 and that
2AdPro handled an insignificant amount of advertising production
work outsourced from the subject facility prior to the
consolidation of operations to the GPC.
Based on a careful review of information obtained during the
initial and reconsideration investigations, the Department
determines that neither a shift to a foreign country by the subject
firm of services like or directly competitive with the graphic
design work supplied by workers at the subject firm nor a foreign
acquisition by the subject firm of such services, contributed
importantly to subject worker group separations. Additionally, the
subject firm did not increase imports of services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the subject worker group.
Rather, worker separations at the subject firm in the period under
investigation were attributable to a consolidation of domestic
operations.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Wausau
Daily Herald, Advertising Production Division, a Subsidiary of
Gannett Co., Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 20th day of July, 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-75,090

WAUSAU DAILY HERALD
ADVERTISING PRODUCTION DIVISION
A SUBSIDIARY OF GANNETT CO., INC.
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN

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 January 12, 2011, on behalf of workers of Wausau Daily
Herald, Advertising Production Division, a subsidiary of Gannett
Co., Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin. The workers produce newspaper
advertisements.
The petitioners allege that the worker separations are due
to an acquisition of services from a foreign country. The
investigation included analysis of information provided by the
petitioners and the workers’ firm, as well as a review of data
submitted as part of case number TA-W-74,767. That case also
covered workers of Wausau Daily Herald, Advertising Production
Division, a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin,
for which a negative determination was issued on November 9,
2010.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion II has not been met because there were not
increased imports or an acquisition of services from a foreign
country by the workers’ firm. Criterion III has not been met
because the worker separations are not attributable to increased
imports or an acquisition of services from a foreign country by the
workers’ firm. Rather, the investigation established that the
worker separations are due to a shift of services to other
locations within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because the firm 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
or supply of a service 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 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 Wausau Daily Herald,
Advertising Production Division, a subsidiary of Gannett Co.,
Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin who produce newspaper advertisements, 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 day of February, 2011


/s/Michael W. Jaffe__________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-75,090

WAUSAU DAILY HERALD
ADVERTISING PRODUCTION DIVISION
A SUBSIDIARY OF GANNETT CO., INC.
WAUSAU, WISCONSIN


Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated March 1, 2011 (received March 7, 2011),
the 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 Wausau Daily Herald, Advertising Production Division,
a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin (subject
firm). The determination was issued on February 11, 2011. The
Department’s Notice of Determination will soon be published in the
Federal Register. The workers produce newspaper advertisements.
The negative determination was based on the findings that,
during the period under investigation, there were no increased
imports or an acquisition of services from a foreign country by the
workers’ firm. The negative determination stated that the worker
separations are due to a shift of services to other locations
within the United States and the firm 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 or supply of a service
that was the basis for TAA-certification.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged
that “Gannett is outsourcing ads in order to reduce the workforce
throughout Gannett Newspapers.” The request also focused on a
Gannettoid newsletter, dated August 20, 2009, that stated
“Outsourcing will increase from 10% to about 30% being
outsourced” and a newsletter, dated November 23, 2009, that
stated “we have reinstated outsourcing . . . outsourcing will be
setting up visits to those sites who have already accomplished
some local area consolidations such as . . . Wisconsin.” The
request also referred to other, previously-submitted articles
that mention out-sourcing by the subject firm.
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 March, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P





- 12 -