Hilti Inc., New Castle, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration [03/18/2003]
Volume 68, Number 52, Page 12936-12937
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-42,175]
Hilti Inc., New Castle, PA; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application received on December 9, 2002, petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
denial notice applicable to workers of Hilti Inc., New Castle,
Pennsylvania was signed on November 13, 2002, and published in the
Federal Register on November 27, 2002 (67 FR 70970).
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
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Hilti Inc., New
Castle, Pennsylvania engaged in activities related to repair of
machinery and fabrications. The petition was denied because the
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of
section 222(3) of the Act.
The petitioner alleges that the workers do not perform bookkeeping
services as addressed in the ``Negative Determination Regarding
Eligibility To Apply for Workers Adjustment Assistance''.
A review of the initial investigation indicates that the workers
were engaged in activities related to repair of machinery and
fabrications. The TAA decision was based on the correct service
functions performed by the subject firm. The Department inadvertently
referenced ``bookkeeping'' rather than ``repair of machinery and
fabrication'' in the decision.
The petitioner also alleges that the petitioning worker group was
engaged in production as ``it relates to material movement, welding
repair, and other functions related to ingot production and the
production of SBQ steel bar''.
[[Page 12937]]
Contact with the company revealed that petitioning workers were
engaged in fabrication (welding) and repair service of machinery at
unaffiliated steel facilities on a contract basis. These functions do
not constitute production.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under
certification for TAA.
In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6410 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
|
