Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date: 11/01/2012
Filed Date: 11/04/2013
Most Recent Update: 08/12/2014
Determination Date: 08/12/2014
Expiration Date: 08/12/2016
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-83,194
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF MERCK & CO., INC.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GROUP
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM AGILE-1
AND LANCASTER LABORATORIES
WEST POINT, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration
On April 8, 2014, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD), a Subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania. The appropriate subdivision was later identified as Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Research and Development Group, West Point, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as the “R&D Group” or “subject firm”). The Notice was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2014 (79 FR 24013).
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the initial investigation of this petition was too broad and did not examine how the functions of the workers of the R&D Group may have been impacted by outsourcing and/or increased imports of like or directly competitive services. Further, the petitioner stated that workers of Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corporation, Merck Research Labs, Disease Area Biology, In Vitro/In Vivo, Kenilworth, New Jersey (case TA-W-81,413) were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance on May 18, 2012 and alleged that workers of the subject firm were impacted by similar circumstances and should also be certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), are 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;
(2)(B)(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/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of separation.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department collected information from the petitioner, a former worker of the R&D Group, and the subject firm in order to confirm previously supplied information, address allegations, narrow the scope of the investigation to the R&D Group, and collect new information to determine whether foreign competition impacted the operations at the subject firm.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that the workers in the R&D Group were impacted by a foreign acquisition of R&D functions like or directly competitive with the functions supplied by the workers, which contributed importantly to separations in the R&D Group.
The reconsideration investigation also revealed that the worker group includes on-site leased workers from Agile-1 and Lancaster Laboratories.
Based upon the findings of the reconsideration investigation, the Department finds that Section 222(a)(1) has been met because 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.
The Department also finds that Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers’ firm has partially acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with the services supplied by the workers, which contributed importantly to worker group separations at the subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Research and Development Group, West Point, Pennsylvania, who were engaged in employment related to the supply of research and development services, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Research and Development Group, including on-site leased workers from Agile-1 and Lancaster Laboratories, West Point, Pennsylvania who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 1, 2012, through two years from the date of this certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 12th day of August, 2014
¬¬¬¬
/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-83,194
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., (MSD)
A SUBSIDIARY OF MERCK & CO., INC.
WEST POINT, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 10, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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 issued on February 18, 2014 and the Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2014 (79 FR 14543). Workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to the production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines for human use.
The negative determination was based on the Department’s findings that the subject firm did not shift production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines to a foreign country (or acquire such production from a foreign country) and that imports of articles like or directly competitive with the pharmaceuticals and vaccines produced by the workers did not increase during the period under investigation.
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 request for reconsideration included information that indicates that the determination was based on facts not previously considered. The request for reconsideration stated that the worker group at the subject facility consists of three separately identifiable worker sub-groups (research and development, manufacturing, and global support networks), that the scope of the initial investigation was “overly narrow” because workers in the research and development sub-group and/or the global support networks sub-group “may be engaged in activities totally separate and unrelated from” activities of the manufacturing sub-group. The request for reconsideration included supporting documents.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration, including the attachments, 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 8th day of April, 2014
/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-83,194
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., (MSD)
A SUBSIDIARY OF MERCK & CO., INC.
WEST POINT, 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 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.
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.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
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 November 4, 2013 by a State Workforce Office on behalf
of workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD), a subsidiary of
Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania. The workers' firm
is engaged in activities related to the production of
pharmaceuticals and vaccines for humans.
The petitioner alleged that offshoring caused worker
separations.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the petitioner.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with pharmaceuticals and vaccines have
not increased during from January through October 2012 when
compared to the same period in 2013.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of articles like or directly competitive with
pharmaceuticals and vaccines to a foreign country or acquire
like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country.
Rather, the investigation confirmed that worker separations
where the result of a transfer to another facility located
within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD),
a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania,
is not a Supplier or a 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied because the workers'
firm has not been publicly 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 Merck Sharp & Dohme
Corp., (MSD), a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point,
Pennsylvania engaged in activities related to the production of
pharmaceuticals and vaccines to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of February, 2014.
/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-83,194
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF MERCK & CO., INC.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GROUP
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM AGILE-1
AND LANCASTER LABORATORIES
WEST POINT, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration
On April 8, 2014, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD), a Subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania. The appropriate subdivision was later identified as Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Research and Development Group, West Point, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as the “R&D Group” or “subject firm”). The Notice was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2014 (79 FR 24013).
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the initial investigation of this petition was too broad and did not examine how the functions of the workers of the R&D Group may have been impacted by outsourcing and/or increased imports of like or directly competitive services. Further, the petitioner stated that workers of Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corporation, Merck Research Labs, Disease Area Biology, In Vitro/In Vivo, Kenilworth, New Jersey (case TA-W-81,413) were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance on May 18, 2012 and alleged that workers of the subject firm were impacted by similar circumstances and should also be certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), are 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;
(2)(B)(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/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of separation.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department collected information from the petitioner, a former worker of the R&D Group, and the subject firm in order to confirm previously supplied information, address allegations, narrow the scope of the investigation to the R&D Group, and collect new information to determine whether foreign competition impacted the operations at the subject firm.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that the workers in the R&D Group were impacted by a foreign acquisition of R&D functions like or directly competitive with the functions supplied by the workers, which contributed importantly to separations in the R&D Group.
The reconsideration investigation also revealed that the worker group includes on-site leased workers from Agile-1 and Lancaster Laboratories.
Based upon the findings of the reconsideration investigation, the Department finds that Section 222(a)(1) has been met because 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.
The Department also finds that Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers’ firm has partially acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with the services supplied by the workers, which contributed importantly to worker group separations at the subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Research and Development Group, West Point, Pennsylvania, who were engaged in employment related to the supply of research and development services, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Research and Development Group, including on-site leased workers from Agile-1 and Lancaster Laboratories, West Point, Pennsylvania who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 1, 2012, through two years from the date of this certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 12th day of August, 2014
¬¬¬¬
/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-83,194
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., (MSD)
A SUBSIDIARY OF MERCK & CO., INC.
WEST POINT, PENNSYLVANIA
Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 10, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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 issued on February 18, 2014 and the Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2014 (79 FR 14543). Workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to the production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines for human use.
The negative determination was based on the Department’s findings that the subject firm did not shift production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines to a foreign country (or acquire such production from a foreign country) and that imports of articles like or directly competitive with the pharmaceuticals and vaccines produced by the workers did not increase during the period under investigation.
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 request for reconsideration included information that indicates that the determination was based on facts not previously considered. The request for reconsideration stated that the worker group at the subject facility consists of three separately identifiable worker sub-groups (research and development, manufacturing, and global support networks), that the scope of the initial investigation was “overly narrow” because workers in the research and development sub-group and/or the global support networks sub-group “may be engaged in activities totally separate and unrelated from” activities of the manufacturing sub-group. The request for reconsideration included supporting documents.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration, including the attachments, 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 8th day of April, 2014
/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-83,194
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., (MSD)
A SUBSIDIARY OF MERCK & CO., INC.
WEST POINT, 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 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.
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.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
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 November 4, 2013 by a State Workforce Office on behalf
of workers of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD), a subsidiary of
Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania. The workers' firm
is engaged in activities related to the production of
pharmaceuticals and vaccines for humans.
The petitioner alleged that offshoring caused worker
separations.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the petitioner.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with pharmaceuticals and vaccines have
not increased during from January through October 2012 when
compared to the same period in 2013.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of articles like or directly competitive with
pharmaceuticals and vaccines to a foreign country or acquire
like or directly competitive articles from a foreign country.
Rather, the investigation confirmed that worker separations
where the result of a transfer to another facility located
within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD),
a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania,
is not a Supplier or a 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied because the workers'
firm has not been publicly 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 Merck Sharp & Dohme
Corp., (MSD), a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point,
Pennsylvania engaged in activities related to the production of
pharmaceuticals and vaccines to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of February, 2014.
/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance