Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 06/04/2001
Most Recent Update: 11/27/2001
Determination Date: 11/27/2001
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,382
AND
NAFTA-4942
ALLIED VAUGHN
CLINTON, TENNESSEE
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of December 10, 2001, the company 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) under petition TA-W-39,382, and North American
Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-
TAA) under petition NAFTA-4942. The denial notices applicable to
workers of Allied Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, were signed on
November 27, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on
December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65220 and 66 FR 65221, respectively).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Allied
Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, engaged in customer service
activities for a firm which replicated VHS video activities, was
denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The NAFTA-TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers engaged
in customer service activities for a firm which replicated VHS
video, was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce
an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act,
as amended.
The petitioner alleges that the Allied Vaughn, Clinton,
Tennesse workers were engaged in activities related to the
replication of VHS video cassettes.
Upon examination of the application and information provided
in the initial investigation, the Department of Labor concurs
with the petitioners' allegation that the workers were engaged in
activities related to the replicating of VHS videos.
The petitioner further alleges that the subject plant
workers should be tied to another group of workers who were
certified under TA-W-39,344 and NAFTA-TAA-4913. Those workers
were engaged in the replication of compact discs at the same
location under the company name AmericDisc, Inc. This allegation
is based on the fact that workers of Allied Vaughn commingled
various administrative and other non-manufacturing functions at
the Clinton facility.
Prior to December 2000, the two product lines were under the
control of Allied Digital Technologies, Clinton, Tennessee.
Allied Digital Technologies then sold each product line to a
different company. The compact disc line was purchased by
AmericDisc, Inc. and the VHS cassette line went to Allied Vaughn,
a.k.a. Willette Acquisition Corporation. However, although the
companies now owned separate product lines, they agreed to
continue to share non-manufacturing workers as a cost saving
measure.
Since the workers of Allied Vaughn were engaged exclusively
in the replication of VHS cassettes, the import data of compact
discs used to certify workers at AmericDisc, Inc. cannot be used
in this investigation.
The major contributing factor leading to the layoffs at the
subject plant was completely unrelated to imports of replicated
VHS cassettes. The sole catalyst concerned the transfer of
AmericDisc, Inc. operations to Canada. This led Allied Vaughn to
close the facility, as it was no longer efficient for their
needs, effectively causing the subject plant to shift their
production domestically.
Finally, since the companies are not legally affiliated, the
subject firm cannot be tied to the AmeriDisc, Inc. TAA and/or
NAFTA certifications.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 19th day of March, 2002.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,382
ALLIED VAUGHN
CLINTON, TENNESSEE
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
USC 2273) as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
of 1988 (P.L. 100-418), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
received on June 4, 2001, and filed on behalf of workers and former
workers at Allied Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee. The workers are
engaged in customer service activities for a firm which replicated
VHS video cassettes.
The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of
Allied Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, do not produce an article within
the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act. The Department of Labor
has consistently determined that the performance of services does
not constitute production of an article, as required by Section 222
of the Trade Act of 1974, and this determination has been upheld in
the U. S. Court of Appeals.
Workers of subject firm may be certified only if their
separation was caused importantly by a reduced demand for their
services from a parent firm, a firm otherwise related to the
subject firm by ownership, or a firm related by control.
Additionally, the reduction in demand for services must originate
at a production facility whose workers independently meet the
statutory criteria for certification and the reduction must
directly relate to the product impacted by imports. These
conditions have not been met for workers at the subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of Allied
Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 27th day of November 2001.
/s/ Linda G/ Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer
Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,382
AND
NAFTA-4942
ALLIED VAUGHN
CLINTON, TENNESSEE
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of December 10, 2001, the company 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) under petition TA-W-39,382, and North American
Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-
TAA) under petition NAFTA-4942. The denial notices applicable to
workers of Allied Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, were signed on
November 27, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on
December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65220 and 66 FR 65221, respectively).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Allied
Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, engaged in customer service
activities for a firm which replicated VHS video activities, was
denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The NAFTA-TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers engaged
in customer service activities for a firm which replicated VHS
video, was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce
an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act,
as amended.
The petitioner alleges that the Allied Vaughn, Clinton,
Tennesse workers were engaged in activities related to the
replication of VHS video cassettes.
Upon examination of the application and information provided
in the initial investigation, the Department of Labor concurs
with the petitioners' allegation that the workers were engaged in
activities related to the replicating of VHS videos.
The petitioner further alleges that the subject plant
workers should be tied to another group of workers who were
certified under TA-W-39,344 and NAFTA-TAA-4913. Those workers
were engaged in the replication of compact discs at the same
location under the company name AmericDisc, Inc. This allegation
is based on the fact that workers of Allied Vaughn commingled
various administrative and other non-manufacturing functions at
the Clinton facility.
Prior to December 2000, the two product lines were under the
control of Allied Digital Technologies, Clinton, Tennessee.
Allied Digital Technologies then sold each product line to a
different company. The compact disc line was purchased by
AmericDisc, Inc. and the VHS cassette line went to Allied Vaughn,
a.k.a. Willette Acquisition Corporation. However, although the
companies now owned separate product lines, they agreed to
continue to share non-manufacturing workers as a cost saving
measure.
Since the workers of Allied Vaughn were engaged exclusively
in the replication of VHS cassettes, the import data of compact
discs used to certify workers at AmericDisc, Inc. cannot be used
in this investigation.
The major contributing factor leading to the layoffs at the
subject plant was completely unrelated to imports of replicated
VHS cassettes. The sole catalyst concerned the transfer of
AmericDisc, Inc. operations to Canada. This led Allied Vaughn to
close the facility, as it was no longer efficient for their
needs, effectively causing the subject plant to shift their
production domestically.
Finally, since the companies are not legally affiliated, the
subject firm cannot be tied to the AmeriDisc, Inc. TAA and/or
NAFTA certifications.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 19th day of March, 2002.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,382
ALLIED VAUGHN
CLINTON, TENNESSEE
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
USC 2273) as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
of 1988 (P.L. 100-418), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
received on June 4, 2001, and filed on behalf of workers and former
workers at Allied Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee. The workers are
engaged in customer service activities for a firm which replicated
VHS video cassettes.
The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of
Allied Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, do not produce an article within
the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act. The Department of Labor
has consistently determined that the performance of services does
not constitute production of an article, as required by Section 222
of the Trade Act of 1974, and this determination has been upheld in
the U. S. Court of Appeals.
Workers of subject firm may be certified only if their
separation was caused importantly by a reduced demand for their
services from a parent firm, a firm otherwise related to the
subject firm by ownership, or a firm related by control.
Additionally, the reduction in demand for services must originate
at a production facility whose workers independently meet the
statutory criteria for certification and the reduction must
directly relate to the product impacted by imports. These
conditions have not been met for workers at the subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of Allied
Vaughn, Clinton, Tennessee, are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 27th day of November 2001.
/s/ Linda G/ Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer
Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance