DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-40,495
AND
NAFTA-05581

G & L SERVICE COMPANY, NORTH AMERICA (USA), INCORPORATED
EAGLE PASS, TEXAS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of April 4, 2002, the 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) under petition TA-W-40,495 and North American
Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-
TAA) under petition NAFTA-5581. The TAA denial notice applicable
to workers of G & L Service Company, North America (USA),
Incorporated, Eagle Pass, Texas was signed on March 8, 2002 and
published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2002 (67 FR
15226). The NAFTA-TAA denial notice applicable to workers of G &
L Service Company, North America (USA), Incorporated, Eagle Pass,
Texas, was signed on March 8, 2002 and published in the Federal
Register on March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15227).
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 G & L
Service Company, North America (USA), Incorporated, Eagle Pass,
Texas were engaged in providing support services to a
manufacturing facility located in Mexico. There was no
separation of workers manufacturing a product at a corporately-
affiliated domestic facility. Sales increased in 2000 compared
to 1999 and in January-September 2001 compared to the same period
in 2000.
The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was denied
because criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act,
as amended, were not met. There was no shift in production from
the workers' firm to Mexico or Canada during the relevant period.
The workers of the subject firm provided services to a
manufacturing facility of their parent company located in Mexico.
Increased company imports from Mexico did not cause separations
of workers at the subject firm, however, production of men's and
women's slacks at the Mexican facility contributed to employment
at the subject facility.


The petitioners allege that production at the subject firm
declined during the relevant period of the investigation. The
petitioners further state that they believe all criteria at the
subject firm have been met and therefore they should qualify for
Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment
Assistance.
The Department reviewed the data supplied by the company
during the initial investigation and requested clarification from
the company concerning the functions performed at the subject
firm. Based on further information provided by the company, it
has become evident that the workers were not engaged in
production of an article, men's and women's pants and shorts.
Workers instead, only performed administrative services at the
subject facility during the 2000 and 2001 period. The workers
provided services in support of a foreign affiliated plant that
produced a product.
The subject workers do not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act (TAA) and Section 250 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (NAFTA-TAA).
The petitioners also allege that a portion of their work was
performed in Mexico.
Subject plant worker functions performed outside the subject
plant location are not relevant. The Department conducts TAA and
NAFTA-TAA investigations for specified locations that are
indicated on the TAA and/or NAFTA-TAA petition. Regardless, the
work performed by the workers was not producing an article.
The new information provided by the petitioner, which while
perhaps altering the basis for the prior decisions, does not
provide a basis to change the prior decisions.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no 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 31st day of May, 2002.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
_______________________
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance