DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,895

UNY LLC DBA GENERAL SUPER PLATING
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES WERE REPORTED UNDER
MJ ENTERPRISES
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
CONTEMPORARY PERSONNEL SERVICES
EAST SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

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 March 24, 2015, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on May 19, 2015, 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 UNY LLC dba General Super Plating, including workers
whose wages were reported under MJ Enterprises and including on-
site leased workers from Contemporary Personnel Services, East
Syracuse, New York. An application for regulatory reconsideration
was received on May 28, 2015. The application was not determined
prior to the reauthorization of the Trade Act.
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of electroplated plastic and metal parts.
Based on information reviewed during the statutory
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)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the articles produced by UNY LLC dba General
Super Plating, including workers whose wages were reported under
MJ Enterprises and including on-site leased workers from
Contemporary Personnel Services, East Syracuse, New York have not
increased. Though imports were reported by the subject firm, it
was declining absolute and relative to subject firm production
during the period of January through February 2014 over the 2015
corresponding period. Furthermore, a survey was conducted of the
subject firm’s major declining customers regarding purchases of
electroplated plastics and metal parts in 2013, 2014, and during
the period of January through February 2015. The survey revealed
no imports. Furthermore, United States imports, from the
customer of finished articles containing like or directly
competitive foreign components to what the subject firm supplied,
did not increase or occur.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of electroplated plastic and metal parts or a like or directly
competitive article to a foreign country or acquire electroplated
plastic and metal parts or a like or directly competitive article
from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that UNY LLC dba General Super Plating,
including workers whose wages were reported under MJ Enterprises
and including on-site leased workers from Contemporary Personnel
Services, East Syracuse, New York 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 UNY LLC dba General Super Plating,
including workers whose wages were reported under MJ Enterprises
and including on-site leased workers from Contemporary Personnel
Services, East Syracuse, New York 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 UNY LLC dba
General Super Plating, including workers whose wages were
reported under MJ Enterprises and including on-site leased
workers from Contemporary Personnel Services, East Syracuse, New
York, who were engaged in employment related to the production of
electroplated plastic and metal parts to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 26th day of February, 2016

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





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,895

UNY LLC DBA GENERAL SUPER PLATING
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES WERE REPORTED UNDER
MJ ENTERPRISES
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
CONTEMPORARY PERSONNEL SERVICES
EAST SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

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 March 24, 2015 by the Communication Workers of
America, IUE Division on behalf of workers of UNY LLC dba
General Super Plating, East Syracuse, New York. The worker
group includes workers whose wages were reported under MJ
Enterprises. The worker group also includes on-site leased
workers from Contemporary Personnel Services. The workers’ firm
was engaged in activities related to the production of
electroplated plastic and metal parts.
The petitioner alleged that, “Co. bought and sold at least
3 times in the last 2 years. Last Co. involved is ip3 out of
Mexico and current CEO Kevin Birkmayer is also head of ip3,”
which led to worker separations or the threat thereof. During
the course of the investigation, information was collected
from the workers’ firm, the petitioner, and the firm’s major
declining domestic customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by the firm
have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift production of
electroplated products to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm 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 UNY LLC dba
General Super Plating, including workers whose wages were
reported under MJ Enterprises and including on-site leased
workers from Contemporary Personnel Services, East Syracuse,
New York engaged in activities related to the production of
electroplated products 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 19th day of May, 2015

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