[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23859]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 27, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-29,858]

 

Wetterau/Supervalu, Bloomington, IN; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated August 11, 1994, the AFL-CIO Community 
Services on behalf of the workers requested administrative 
reconsideration of the subject petition for trade adjustment assistant 
(TAA). The denial notice was published in the Federal Register on July 
19, 1994 (59 FR 36793).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The investigation files show that the workers do not produce an 
article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act and this 
issue was fully addressed in the Department's negative determination. 
The workers performed wholesale and retail services.
    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 whose workers 
produce an article and whose workers are currently under a 
certification for TAA. These conditions were not met for the subject 
workers.
    All other considerations which the union makes, i.e., declining net 
earnings and opening more stores to carry imported food, are moot 
because the workers do not produce an article and as such are outside 
the scope of the Trade Act.
    The Trade Act was not intended to provide TAA benefits to everyone 
who is in some way affected by foreign competition but only to those 
who experienced a decline in sales or production and employment and an 
increase in imports of like or directly competitive articles (not 
services) which contributed importantly to declines in sales or 
production and employment at the workers' firm.

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 15th day of September 1994.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Service, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 94-23859 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M