DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,010

THE SMITHFIELD PACKING COMPANY, INCORPORATED
A SUBSIDIARY OF SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
ACCOUNTEMPS, CORESTAFF, AND RANDSTAD
LANDOVER, MARYLAND

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated January 10, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on February 27, 2014,
that was based on no import increase and/or shift in production
to a foreign country. The determination was applicable to workers
and former workers of The Smithfield Packing Company,
Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc., Landover,
Maryland. The clarified worker group is The Smithfield Packing
Company, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Accountemps, Corestaff, and
Randstad, Landover, Maryland. The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of bone-in hams.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that imports of
articles, shifts in production abroad, or acquisitions of articles
did not contribute importantly to worker separations. Furthermore
the worker group did not qualify as a secondary worker or was
affirmed in a final determination by the United States
International Trade Commission.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by The Smithfield
Packing Company, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods,
Inc., including on-site leased workers from Accountemps,
Corestaff, and Randstad, Landover, Maryland did not contribute
importantly to worker separations. The firm did not report
imports of bone-in-ham in 2012, 2013, or during the month of
January 2014. Furthermore, aggregate United States imports of
pork did increase while domestic production of pork was
decreasing, but the increase was insignificant to overall U.S.
production.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of bone-in hams or a like or directly competitive article to a
foreign country or acquire bone-in hams or a like or directly
competitive article from a foreign country. A consolidation of
facilities occurred within the United States. Overall domestic
sales and production within the United States increased.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that The Smithfield Packing Company,
Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc., including
on-site leased workers from Accountemps, Corestaff, and Randstad,
Landover, Maryland 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 The Smithfield Packing Company,
Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc., including
on-site leased workers from Accountemps, Corestaff, and Randstad,
Landover, Maryland does not act as 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 either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since 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, 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 The
Smithfield Packing Company, Incorporated, a subsidiary of
Smithfield Foods, Inc., including on-site leased workers from
Accountemps, Corestaff, and Randstad, Landover, Maryland, who
were engaged in employment related to the production of bone-in
hams to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section
223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 9th day of March, 2016


/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,010

THE SMITHFIELD PACKING COMPANY, INCORPORATED
A SUBSIDIARY OF SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC.
LANDOVER, MARYLAND

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade 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) and
(b) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers'
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles
like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a
free trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase
in imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.

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 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."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on January 10, 2014 by the state workforce office on
behalf of workers of The Smithfield Packing Company,
Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
Landover, Maryland. The workers' firm is engaged in activities
related to the production of bone-in hams.
The petitioner alleged that operations were shifted to a
foreign country. During the course of the investigation,
information was collected from the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the workers' firm did not shift the
production of bone-in hams to a foreign country or acquire bone-
in hams from a foreign country during the relevant period of
2012 and 2013. Rather, the investigation confirmed that all
production of bone-in hams was shifted to other locations within
the United States.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of bone-in hams have not
increased from 2011 to 2012 or from 2012 to 2013.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that The Smithfield Packing Company,
Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
Landover, Maryland is not 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.

Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of The Smithfield
Packing Company, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Smithfield
Foods, Inc., Landover, Maryland engaged in activities related
to production of bone-in hams are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 27th day of February, 2014

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