DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,972

AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION
CORBIN, KENTUCKY

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of November 25, 2001, petitioners 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 October 10, 2001,
and published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2001 (67 FR
67422).
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 American Greetings
Corporation, Corbin, Kentucky 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 petitioners allege that criterion (3) was acknowledged
as having been met by the Department, as established by a
determination in connection with TA-W-41,255 regarding subject
firm workers. To provide proof of this, they attach an untitled
page of this determination.
In fact, this page was extracted from a determination which
was issued as a “Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration”, issued as the result of an
investigation that followed the original “Negative Determination
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance.”
However, in this determination, the word “not” was inadvertently
omitted in the statement “increased imports did contribute
importantly to worker separations.” A corrected republication in
full explaining the inadvertent omission was issued and
published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2002 (67 FR 48484).
The petitioners allege that “we have been told from various
sources of management that approximately nine percent of the work
done at the Corbin plant has been outsourced to other countries.”
They also claim that “American Greetings plans to outsource 75%
of the work previously done at the Corbin plant to foreign
countries within the next two years.
A review of the initial investigation revealed that somewhat
less than nine percent of greeting card sheet production has been
outsourced to offshore facilities. However, as subject firm
workers are not separately identifiable, the production of party
goods, gift wrap and bows (ribbons), and candles must also be
taken into consideration when looking at the percentage of plant
production affected by this outsourcing. When considering imports
of greeting card sheets in context with the total plant
production, imports constitute a negligible percentage. In regard
to any future outsourcing referenced by the petitioners, any
future imports are beyond the relevant period.
The petitioners also assert that sales and production have
“declined in the last eight years” and that “we have been told
the record shows that imported goods...hurt the company sales.”
At one point, they allege that layoffs have been occurring for
the last three years, and recommend that the Department look at
the last five years in assessing company trends.
In establishing worker eligibility for trade adjustment
assistance, the Department considers declines that occurred in
the year preceding the date of the petition. To establish whether
the declines exist, the investigation requires the most recent
two years of data for corresponding periods in order to ascertain
whether declines have occurred in the most recent period relative
to the previous period. Thus periods of five and eight years are
not relevant. Further, a review of the initial investigation
revealed that all sales and production declines of party goods,
gift wrap and bows (ribbons) and candles that occurred in the
relevant period are attributable to domestic transfer. Production
of greeting card sheets increased in 2001 relative to 2000, but
began to decline in January through March, 2002 relative to the
corresponding period of 2001. As mentioned above, imports of
greeting card sheets were negligible relative to overall
production.
The petitioners also assert that laid-off company personnel
are united in the belief that import impact affected layoffs, and
state that “the records and data have proved” that imports
contributed importantly.
No “records and data” were made available in regard to this
request for reconsideration. In regard to attachments to the
petition and request for reconsideration provided in a previous
investigation for this worker group (TA-W-41,255) regarding
competitive company imports (a company email discussing offshore
shipments, labels indicating import shipments), the Department
contacted the company, which provided specific information as to
whether competitive imports had occurred, where production had
been shifted, and specific percentages of import volume versus
total plant production. In all cases where competitive imports
occurred, the volume of imports was deemed negligible. It was on
the basis of this specific information that the determination was
made.
Finally, the petitioners enumerate the three criteria for
eligibility and assert that they meet all three criteria.
As noted above, an investigation of the information
available reveals that subject firm workers of American Greetings
Corporation, Corbin, Kentucky do not meet the “contributed
importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
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 7th day of March 2003.



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