DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,368

KOMTEK
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of December 1, 2002, the United Steelworkers
of America, District #4, Local Union No. 2936, 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 was signed on November 1,
2002 and published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2002
(67 FR 70460).
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 Komtek,
Worcester, Massachusetts engaged in the production of forged
aerospace products (such as fuel combustion swirlers, fuel
nozzles, blades, vanes, and fittings) and medical devices, was
denied because the "contributed importantly" group eligibility
requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met. The "contributed importantly" test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
customers. The Department conducted a survey of the subject
firm’s major customers regarding their purchases of forged
aerospace products and medical devices in 2000, 2001 and January
through August 2002. None of the respondents reported increasing
imports while decreasing purchases from the subject firm during
the relevant period. Imports did not contribute importantly to
layoffs at the subject firm.
The petitioner alleges that the company has a plant in
Tunisia that supplies production to one of their major customers,
and that this foreign production replaced subject plant
production, leading to production declines and layoffs at the
subject firm.
Further review revealed that Komtek did engage in a
partnership with a Tunisian plant for the purposes of
supplementing their domestic production of fuel combustion
swirlers specifically to service a major customer. A review of
this customer’s purchasing trends revealed that the customer did
begin importing competitive fuel combustion swirlers in the
January through August 2002 time period. However, this customer
also increased their purchases from Komtek’s domestic facility in
January through August of 2002 period compared to the same period
in 2001. As there were no declines in purchases from the
domestic subject plant in the period when imports began, there is
no evidence of import impact. Further, contact with the company
confirmed that the sales numbers provided by the customer in the
relevant time frames of the investigation were correct. The
company further stated that the subject plant continues to supply
fuel combustion swirlers to this customer.
The union further appears to claim that the plant manager of
the subject plant was the most knowledgeable source in regard to
import impact on subject firm production, but was on vacation at
the time that the company data was provided in the initial
investigation. They asserted that the company official who did
provide the information did not “understand the amount of work we
have lost due to the work being done in other countries.”
The plant manager was contacted in regard to this matter. In
response to these allegations, he stated that the domestic plant
had not been impacted by any foreign production. He asserted that
the fall out of 9/11 on the aerospace industry attributed for any
subsequent declines that the company had experienced. (This
coincides with the period in the beginning of 2002 when layoffs
actually occurred.)
In regard to the major customer supplied with fuel
combustion swirlers by the Tunisian facility, the plant manager
stated that, in 2002, the domestic plant actually signed an
agreement to produce a larger percentage of the customer’s total
production needs of competitive products.
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, D.C., this 26th day of February, 2003.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
_______________________
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance