DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-42,136

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
STOW MOLD FACILITY,
AKRON/STOW COMPLEX,
AKRON, OHIO

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of November 29, 2002, the United Steelworkers
of America, Local 2, 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
October 21, 2002 and published in the Federal Register on
November 5, 2002 (67 FR 67419).
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 Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co., Stow Mold Facility, Akron/Stow Complex, Akron,
Ohio engaged in the production of tire molds and associated
components, 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 union alleges that the Departmental finding that subject
firm production was shifted domestically was “erroneous.” The
union official further states that the North Carolina facility,
which was purported to have taken on subject firm production, was
“not capable of doing the work which was performed at the Stow
Mold Plant prior to its closure.”
Upon further review and contact with the company, it was
revealed that virtually all of the subject firm production did
indeed shift to the North Carolina facility, and that it produced
competitive products prior to the closure of the Stow facility.
The only component that was not shifted to this facility, a tread
mold that was inserted into the larger mold, was outsourced by
the company to another domestic supplier.
The union also asserts that the company indicated plans to
shift production to affiliated company facilities in Luxembourg
and Sao Paulo, Brazil. To support this allegation, the request
for reconsideration was accompanied by what appears to be a
company-produced chart titled “Reallocation Study”. This chart
indicates that subject firm production would shift predominantly
to Luxembourg and Sao Paulo, with the North Carolina facility
receiving a very small part of the production shifted from the
subject firm.
This chart was faxed to the company for their review and
comment. Upon review, they stated that it was indeed a
reflection of a company document, and that it was put together by
the company’s Facilities Planning Department. However, the study
was based on tire mold production scheduled for 2002, with the
premise that the Stow plant would be closed in the beginning of
2002. In fact, the Stow plant did not close until October of
2002, thus the shift did not occur in line with the study that
was conducted. As a result, excess capacity existed at the North
Carolina facility and was able to absorb all of the subject
facility’s production.
Finally, the company did affirm that competitive imports
were occasionally shipped from their foreign affiliates, but
clarified that, in 2002, imports constituted a very small amount
of subject plant production.
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