DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,831
AND
NAFTA-06338

METALDYNE, INC.
FORMERLY ACCURA TOOL & MOLD CO., INC.
CRYSTAL LAKE, ILLINOIS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of December 18, 2002 (postmark date), a
petitioner 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-41,831 and North
American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance
(NAFTA-TAA) under petition NAFTA-6338. The TAA and NAFTA-TAA
denial notices applicable to workers of Metaldyne, Inc., formerly
Accura Tool & Mold Co., Inc., Crystal Lake, Illinois were signed
on November 22, 2002 and November 25, 2002, and published in the
Federal Register on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78257 and 78258,
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 Metaldyne,
Inc., formerly Accura Tool & Mold Co., Inc., Crystal Lake,
Illinois, was denied because the “contributed importantly” group
eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, was not met. Most of the molds and dies
manufactured at Crystal Lake were sent internally within the
subject corporation. Only a relatively minor amount of the
plastics operation was supplied to outside customers. Accura
Tool & Mold Co., Inc/Metaldyne Inc. did not increase imports of
automotive transmission and powertrain molds and dies from 2000
through July 2002 when the plant shut down. Production of metal
moldings was transferred to another affiliated domestic facility.
The plastics operation was abandoned due to the closure of the
plant.
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.
Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to
worker separations. The factors as addressed in the TAA denial
were also discussed in the NAFTA decision.


The petitioner appears to indicate that the Department of
Labor made errors in the description of the type of work that was
done at the Accura Tool & Mold Co., Inc./Metaldyne plant. When
contacted, the petitioner clarified that he suspected that the
petitioning worker group produced more than just molds and dies
for components other than powertrains and transmissions, as the
workers were not always informed about the end use of their
production.
A review of the data supplied in the initial investigation
and recent follow up contact with the company indicates that the
subject plant primarily produced powertrain and transmission
molds and dies. The subject firm also produced plastic molds,
but this constituted a relatively small portion of overall plant
production.
The petitioner also alleged that there were “errors in the
correlation of definitions of what Metaldyne’s description and
functions of Accura Tool and Die were.” The petitioner also
attached various documents in an attempt to depict the
allegation. When contacted for clarification on this allegation,
the petitioner stated that workers skilled in mold and die
production can produce molds and dies for a wide variety of metal
parts. He also asserted that any mold and die facility had
workers that could easily produce products competitive with those
produced at the subject firm, and that there were many cheaper
facilities in Mexico and Canada capable of this production. It
appears that he believes that, if the high transferability of the
petitioning worker group’s skills were properly understood, then
the worker group would be considered eligible for trade
adjustment assistance.
In its investigation to assess the eligibility of
petitioning worker groups for trade adjustment assistance, the
Department considers the actual products produced by subject firm
workers, and whether or not like or directly competitive products
were imported in the relevant period. Thus, the “functions” as
represented by the petitioner, are irrelevant. The overwhelming
amount of mold and die production was transferred to another
affiliated domestic location. As indicated in the initial
investigation, the subject firm also produced plastic molds, but
this constituted a relatively small portion of overall plant
production. The plastics mold operation was abandoned at the time
of plant closure, as it was a residual business of facility’s
previous owners, and not in line with the business experience and
interests of Metaldyne. Recent contact with a company official
confirmed that the company did not import products competitive
with those produced at the subject firm during the relevant
period.
The petitioner also indicates that additional plants located
in foreign locations perform the same kind of work and
production.
An examination of the attachments provided by the petitioner
show various products (i.e. precision die casting as rough
castings, machined casting, assemblies and modules) made on a
company wide basis from various locations, including foreign
locations. The import of these products to the United States is
not relevant to the TAA or NAFTA investigations that were filed
on behalf of workers producing molds and dies. The product
imported must be “like or directly” competitive with what the
subject firm produced and the imports (including Canada and/or
Mexico as it relates to NAFTA) must “contribute importantly” to
the layoffs at the subject plant to meet the eligibility
requirements for adjustment assistance under Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974 or NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
The petitioner further appears to state that there has been
little consideration for present economical factors that point to
the current trend of thousands of manufacturing plant closures
and massive layoffs due to overseas trade agreements resulting in
the Accura Tool and Dye plant closing.
Economic conditions are not criteria in determining
eligibility for worker adjustment assistance pursuant to the
Trade Act Of 1974. Increased imports (imports from Canada or
Mexico as it relates to NAFTA) of products like or directly
competitive with what the subject plant produced must contribute
importantly to the layoffs at the subject plant to meet the
eligibility requirements of TAA or NAFTA. Also, a shift in
production to Canada or Mexico could have qualified the workers
for NAFTA. In any event, none of these events occurred thus the
criteria were not met for the workers of Metaldyne, Inc.,
formerly Accura Tool & Mold Co., Inc., Crystal Lake, Illinois.


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 13th day of March, 2003.

/s/Edward A. Tomchick_____________
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance