DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-42,175

HILTI INC.
NEW CASTLE, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on December 9, 2002, petitioners
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 applicable to workers of
Hilti Inc., New Castle, Pennsylvania was signed on November 13,
2002, and published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2002
(67 FR 70970).
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 was filed on behalf of workers at Hilti
Inc., New Castle, Pennsylvania engaged in activities related to
repair of machinery and fabrications. The petition was denied
because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within
the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The petitioner alleges that the worker’s do not perform
bookkeeping services as addressed in the “Negative Determination
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Workers Adjustment
Assistance”.
A review of the initial investigation indicates that the
workers were engaged in activities related to repair of machinery
and fabrications. The TAA decision was based on the correct
service functions performed by the subject firm. The Department
inadvertently referenced “bookkeeping” rather than “repair of
machinery and fabrication” in the decision.
The petitioner also alleges that the petitioning worker
group was engaged in production as “it relates to material
movement, welding repair, and other functions related to ingot
production and the production of SBQ steel bar”.
Contact with the company revealed that petitioning workers
were engaged in fabrication (welding) and repair service of
machinery at unaffiliated steel facilities on a contract basis.
These functions do not constitute production.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified
for TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a
reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling
firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article and who are
currently under certification for TAA.
In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not
produce an article within the meaning 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 27th day of February, 2003.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick


EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance