[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8065-8066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3404]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-29,927; NAFTA-00120]
Walker Manufacturing Company Hebron, Ohio; Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On December 14, 1994 the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand
for further investigation in UAW Local 1927 and Employees and Former
Employees of Walker Manufacturing v. Secretary of Labor (94-10-00584).
The workers filing under petition TA-W-29,927 were initially denied
eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) on September
2, 1994 (59 FR 45711) and denied on application for reconsideration on
October 5, 1994 (59 52194). The Department's denial was based on the
fact that increased import criterion and the ``contributed
importantly'' test of the Worker Group Eligibility Requirements of the
Trade Act were not met. U.S. imports of mufflers and exhaust pipes
declined in 1993 compared to 1992 and in the latest twelve month period
ending in May 1994 compared to the same twelve month period ending in
May 1993.
The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated
through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The Department's
survey of Hebron's sole customer shows that the sole customer's import
purchases were not important relative to Hebron's sales during the
relevant period.
The workers were also denied under the NAFTA petition (NAFTA-00120)
on June 30, 1994 (59 FR 3997) and on reconsideration on October 7, 1994
(59 FR 53213). The Department's denial was based on the fact that
neither the increased import criterion from Mexico or Canada nor the
shift in production to Mexico or Canada criterion of the Worker Group
Eligibility Requirements of the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act were
met.
The record states that the Ohio Bureau of Employment Security
(OBES) made a preliminary finding that the employment and production
decline and the aggregate import criteria had been met. Under the
NAFTA-TAA provisions, the State does not make a finding on the
``contributed importantly'' test.
On remand the Department contacted the plaintiff's counsel, and
other witnesses to provide the Department with any information or
documentation that would contradict the Department's negative
determinations. The plaintiffs indicated that about 50 resonator
workers were laid off in February, 1994 and that 40 percent of the
plant's production was shipped to Mexico prior to the phasedown.
The remand findings show that the Walker plant in Mexico does not
produce any products for the workers' firm's only customer.
The findings also show that no production was transferred to Mexico
as a result of the closure of the Hebron plant. Only the production of
resonator bodies was transferred to Canada; however, this accounted for
only a very small portion of Hebron's total production and the workers
were not separately identifiable by product. All other production was
transferred to company owned domestic plants.
The Department's survey showed that Hebron's customers did not
decease their purchases of exhaust systems from Hebron and increase
their imports from Mexico or Canada in the relevant period.
The findings on remand show that as a result of the Hebron closure,
the company is making its excess machinery available to other corporate
North American plants including the one in Mexico. According to several
company officials, the Hebron closing is the result of capacity issues
within Walker Manufacturing in North America. [[Page 8066]]
The transfer of machinery from a domestic plant to a Mexican or
Canadian plant would not form a basis for a worker group certification
under the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act. The NAFTA provisions to
the Trade Act specifically state that there must be a transfer of
production from a domestic firm to a Mexican or Canadian plant to be
eligible to apply for transitional adjustment assistance, not machinery
associated with that or any other type of production.
Further, the Department has never considered in any of its
investigations under the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act that the
transfer of machinery is tantamount to the transfer of production.
Certification under the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act is premised
on increased imports of articles from Mexico or Canada that are like or
directly competitive with those produced at the workers' firm or a
shift in production to Mexico or Canada of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those produced at the workers' firm.
Accordingly a shift of machinery or other capital assets would not meet
the shift in production criterion of the NAFTA Worker Group Eligibility
Requirements.
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 January 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Director, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-3404 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M