DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,929

JOY GLOBAL, INC.
ALSO KNOWN AS JOY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
ALL SEASONS TEMPORARIES AND MANPOWER
FRANKLIN, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On December 6, 2012, the Department of Labor (Department)
issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of Joy
Global, Inc., also known as Joy Technologies, Inc., (subject
firm), including on-site leased workers from All Seasons
Temporaries and Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania (subject
facility).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a Firm
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers’ firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and

(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely;

(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or
directly competitive with articles produced or
services supplied by such firm have increased;

(II) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles—
(aa) into which one or more component parts
produced by such firm are directly incorporated, or
(bb) which are produced directly using services
supplied by such firm,
have increased; or

(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
one or more component parts produced outside the
United States that are like or directly competitive
with imports of articles incorporating one or more
component parts produced by such firm have
increased; and

(iii) the increase in imports described in clause
(ii) contributed importantly to such workers’
separation or threat of separation and to the decline
in the sales or production of such firm; or

(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of
services like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or

(II) such workers’ firm has acquired from a
foreign country articles or services that are like
or directly competitive with articles which are
produced or services which are supplied by such
firm; and

(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the
acquisition of articles or services described in clause
(i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers’ separation
or threat of separation.

Initial investigation
On August 29, 2012, a representative from International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 98,
filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated
August 25, 2012, on behalf of workers and former workers of the
subject facility. Workers are engaged in the production of
underground mining machines and component parts. The workers are
not separately identifiable by product line.
The negative determination was based on the findings that the
subject firm had not experienced a decline in the sales or
production of mobile underground mining machines and repair
components during the period under investigation (the
representative base period is August through December 2010, full
year 2011, and January through August 2012; hereafter referred to
as “period under investigation” or “relevant time period”); that
the subject firm did not shift the production of these articles,
or like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign country or
acquire the production of these articles, or like or directly
competitive articles, from a foreign country; that the subject
firm is not a Supplier 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); that the subject firm does not act as
a Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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 that the workers’ firm has not been
publically identified by name by the International Trade Commission
as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in
an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof. As such, the Department issued
a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance on October 16, 2012.

Reconsideration investigation
By application dated November 8, 2012, the petitioner
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding the eligibility of the subject
worker group to apply for adjustment assistance.
In the application, the petitioner stated that foreign
competition had an impact on the subject firm, as well as its
suppliers and downstream vendors, and that the subject firm
outsourced components and manufacturing mining equipment that were
previously made in the United States. The petitioner also alleged
that TA-W-81,929 is similar to TA-W-57,700 and TA-W-71,174.
Additionally, the petitioner stated that the shift in manufacturing
of parts to Mexico and China caused the cessation of manufacturing
of these parts at the subject facility and referred to a vendor in
Mexico that supplies the subject firm with component parts.
On December 6, 2012, the Department issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
in order to conduct further investigation to determine worker
eligibility. The Department’s Notice was published in the Federal
Register on January 4, 2013 (78 FR 774).
In the course of the reconsideration investigation, the
Department confirmed previously-collected information, sought
clarification of previously-submitted information, and obtained
additional facts and data from the subject firm.
The Department confirmed that Section 222(a)(1) has been met
because a significant number or proportion of the workers at the
subject facility have become totally separated.
The Department confirmed that Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) was
not met because sales and production at the subject facility
did not decline during the period under investigation. Rather,
sales and production either increased or remained stable in
2011 from 2010 levels and during January through August 2012
when compared to the corresponding period in 2011. As such,
any increase in imports is irrelevant. Consequently, the
Department did not conduct a survey of the subject firm’s
major customers and did not contact the vendor in Mexico
identified in the request for reconsideration.
Further, the Department confirmed that Section 222(a)(2)(B)
was not met because the subject firm did not shift the production
of mining equipment or components, or like or directly competitive
articles, to a foreign country or acquire the production of such
articles, or like or directly competitive articles, from a foreign
country. Although the subject firm confirmed the existence of
affiliated production facilities in foreign countries, some foreign
facilities did not produce like or directly competitive articles
during the relevant period and others produced articles that are
like or directly competitive with articles produced at the subject
facility prior to the start of the period under investigation.
The petitioner alleges that the case at hand is similar
to TA-W-57,700 (Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining
Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, Illinois;
certification issued on January 26, 2009). The certification
of TA-W-57,700 was based on a shift in production of mining
machinery components (crawler track frames) to Mexico which
contributed importantly to subject worker group separations.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
confirmed that no shift in production of mobile underground
mining machines or component parts (or the repair of component
parts) to a foreign country contributed importantly to worker
separations at the subject facility. Production at affiliated
foreign facilities is either of neither like nor directly
competitive articles, or exclusively for specific foreign
markets. Additionally, the articles that shifted to Mexico in
TA-W-57,700 (crawler track frames) are not like or directly
competitive with those produced at the subject facility.
The petitioner also alleged that the case at hand is
similar to TA-W-71,174 (General Electric Company, Transportation
Division, Erie, Pennsylvania; certification issued on July 23,
2010). The certification of TA-W-71,174 was based on a relative
shift in production of like or directly competitive articles to
a foreign country which contributed importantly to subject
worker group separations.
In TA-W-71,174, General Electric Company operated foreign
facilities that produced articles like or directly competitive
with those produced by the subject worker group and production
at the foreign facilities increased during the same period that
domestic production of these articles declined.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
requested that the subject firm provides information regarding
its foreign facilities that produce articles like or directly
competitive with those manufactured by the workers of the
subject facility during the relevant period.
The subject firm produced information that revealed that
continuous miners are also produced at a facility of the subject
firm in South Africa. Production at the South African facility,
however, increased only marginally. As such, the Department
determined that the production at the foreign facility did not
contribute importantly to subject worker group separations at
the subject facility.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
did not receive information that either Joy Global, Inc. or Joy
Technologies, Inc. was publically identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding
of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or
threat thereof.
CONCLUSION
After careful review of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
applicable regulation, and information obtained during the initial
and reconsideration investigations, I determine that workers and
former workers of Joy Global, Inc., also known as Joy
Technologies, Inc., including on-site leased workers from All
Seasons Temporaries and Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania, are
ineligible to apply for adjustment assistance.
Signed in Washington, D.C., on this 8th day of May, 2013
/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-81,929

JOY GLOBAL, INC.
ALSO KNOWN AS JOY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
ALL SEASONS TEMPORARIES AND MANPOWER
FRANKLIN, PENNSYLVANIA

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), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
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:
(1) 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.

(2) 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.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(b) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 August 29, 2012 by the International Association of
Machinists (IAMAW), District 98 on behalf of workers of Joy Global,
Inc., also known as Joy Technologies, Inc., Franklin,
Pennsylvania. The worker group, herein referred to as Joy Global,
Inc., also consists of on-site leased workers of All Seasons
Temporaries and Manpower. The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of mobile underground mining
machines and repair components. Workers are not separately
identifiable by product.
The petitioner alleged that worker separations at the
subject firm were caused by the outsourcing of work to China and
to other companies outside the U.S.A., and that the situation was
the same as the previous petition for Joy Technologies, Inc., Mt.
Vernon, Illinois (TA-W-57,700).
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Joy Global, Inc. have not experienced
a decline in the sales or production of mobile underground mining
machines and repair components during the relevant period under
investigation. Both sales and production increased from 2010 to
2011 and during January through August 2012 over the
corresponding 2011 period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Joy Global, Inc. did not shift the
production of mobile underground mining machines and repair
components or a like or directly competitive article to a foreign
country or acquire mobile underground mining machines and repair
components or a like or directly competitive article from a
foreign country. Although workers of Joy Technologies, Inc., Mt.
Vernon, Illinois (TA-W-57,700) were deemed eligible to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance based on a shift in production of
mining machinery components to Mexico, the investigation revealed
that worker separations at the subject firm were not caused by a
shift in production of mobile underground mining machines or of
repair components to either Mexico or to another foreign country.
Worker separations at the subject firm were most likely caused by
reduced customer demand attributed to the declining domestic coal
market.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Joy Global, Inc. is not a Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Joy Global, Inc. does not act as a
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since the workers’ firm has not been
publically identified by name by the International Trade Commission
as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in
an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility of Joy Global, Inc., also known
as Joy Technologies, Inc., including on-site leased workers from
All Seasons Temporaries and Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania
engaged in activities related to the production of mobile
underground mining machines and repair components to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of October, 2012.


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




- 8 -