[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20183-20184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10135]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,239]


Nestle Purina Petcare, St. Joseph, Missouri; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application February 19, 2003 the Retail, Wholesale and 
Department Store Union (RWDSU), Local 125 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 January 21, 2003, and published in the Federal Register 
on February 24, 2003 (68 FR 8622).
    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 petition for the workers of Nestle Purina Petcare, St. Joseph, 
Missouri, was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group 
eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, was not

[[Page 20184]]

met. The investigation revealed that the declines in employment are 
related to a merger of Nestle and Purina companies. Sales at the 
subject firm increased in 2001 compared with 2000, and also increased 
during January through December 2002 compared to 2001. The 
investigation revealed that company did not import cat or dog food in 
the relevant period, nor did it shift production to a foreign facility.
    The union alleges that the subject firm shifted production from the 
subject facility to two foreign facilities for the purpose of producing 
like or directly competitive products. The union further alleged that 
the subject firm trained employees from a foreign facility at the 
subject firm for the purpose of producing like or directly competitive 
products.
    A company official was contacted in regard to these allegations. 
The official stated that no production equipment had been shipped from 
the subject facility to the foreign facilities, and that, although 
foreign workers had been trained at the subject facility, none of their 
foreign facilities produced like or directly competitive products. The 
official further clarified that the company had experienced no declines 
in sales and production, but had transferred all production to U.S. 
facilities.

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, DC this 15th day of April, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-10135 Filed 4-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P