Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date: 07/17/2001
Filed Date: 07/29/2002
Most Recent Update: 11/29/2002
Determination Date: 11/29/2002
Expiration Date: 01/06/2006
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-41,889
UNITED CONTAINER MACHINERY
GLEN ARM, MARYLAND
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application January 1, 2003, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on November 29, 2002,
and published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2002 (67 FR
78257).
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 petition for the workers of United Container Machinery,
Glen Arm, Maryland 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
customers of the workers’ firm. The survey revealed that none of
the respondents increased their purchases of imported machinery
for corrugated boxes.
The petitioner states that the subject firm workers were
previously certified for trade adjustment assistance in 1998, and
thus appears to allege that they should be considered eligible
currently.
The Department considers import impact in terms of the
relevant period of the current investigation; therefore import
impact as established in a previous investigation that is outside
the relevant period is irrelevant.
The petitioner also states that the company did not file a
new petition on behalf of subject firm workers when the previous
certification expired.
This fact has no bearing on eligibility of subject firm
workers for trade adjustment assistance.
The petitioner asserts that an affiliate of the subject firm
imports competitive products from Hungary.
In response to this allegation, a company official clarified
that United Container Machinery did merge with another company in
the late summer of 2002, and that the merger did include the
acquisition of a Hungarian facility. He also verified that the
foreign firm has imported a small percentage of their production
to the United States for some time; however, imports of products
produced from this facility have not increased since the merger,
and so have not contributed to layoffs at the subject firm.
The petitioner asserts that a foreign competitor sells
competitive products to at least two customers of the subject
firm.
When contacted about this allegation, the company official
stated that the two companies mentioned comprised a very small
percentage of the subject firm’s sales declines. In fact,
according to the company official, the layoffs were not brought
about by sales and production declines, but rather by a shift in
production to two affiliated domestic facilities.
The petitioner also stated that United Container Machinery
acted as a selling agent of competitive machinery and that this
role “in the long run affected some of our prospective sales.”
The company official that commented on this stated that the
subject firm had taken part in a partnership with several foreign
firms to sell competitive corrugated box machinery, receiving a
commission for their services. However, the imports resulting
from the partnership between the subject firm and the foreign
firms constituted a very small amount relative to production at
the Glen Arm facility. The company official further clarified
that imports declined for the twelve months ending August of
2002, when the partnership ceased.
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 25th day of March, 2003
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-41,889
UNITED CONTAINER MACHINERY
GLEN ARM, MARYLAND
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application January 1, 2003, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on November 29, 2002,
and published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2002 (67 FR
78257).
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 petition for the workers of United Container Machinery,
Glen Arm, Maryland 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
customers of the workers’ firm. The survey revealed that none of
the respondents increased their purchases of imported machinery
for corrugated boxes.
The petitioner states that the subject firm workers were
previously certified for trade adjustment assistance in 1998, and
thus appears to allege that they should be considered eligible
currently.
The Department considers import impact in terms of the
relevant period of the current investigation; therefore import
impact as established in a previous investigation that is outside
the relevant period is irrelevant.
The petitioner also states that the company did not file a
new petition on behalf of subject firm workers when the previous
certification expired.
This fact has no bearing on eligibility of subject firm
workers for trade adjustment assistance.
The petitioner asserts that an affiliate of the subject firm
imports competitive products from Hungary.
In response to this allegation, a company official clarified
that United Container Machinery did merge with another company in
the late summer of 2002, and that the merger did include the
acquisition of a Hungarian facility. He also verified that the
foreign firm has imported a small percentage of their production
to the United States for some time; however, imports of products
produced from this facility have not increased since the merger,
and so have not contributed to layoffs at the subject firm.
The petitioner asserts that a foreign competitor sells
competitive products to at least two customers of the subject
firm.
When contacted about this allegation, the company official
stated that the two companies mentioned comprised a very small
percentage of the subject firm’s sales declines. In fact,
according to the company official, the layoffs were not brought
about by sales and production declines, but rather by a shift in
production to two affiliated domestic facilities.
The petitioner also stated that United Container Machinery
acted as a selling agent of competitive machinery and that this
role “in the long run affected some of our prospective sales.”
The company official that commented on this stated that the
subject firm had taken part in a partnership with several foreign
firms to sell competitive corrugated box machinery, receiving a
commission for their services. However, the imports resulting
from the partnership between the subject firm and the foreign
firms constituted a very small amount relative to production at
the Glen Arm facility. The company official further clarified
that imports declined for the twelve months ending August of
2002, when the partnership ceased.
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 25th day of March, 2003
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance