94-30100. Smith System Manufacturing Company Princeton, Minnesota; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30100]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 7, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-29,808]

 

Smith System Manufacturing Company Princeton, Minnesota; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated September 10, 1994, after being granted a 
filing extension, Local #1996 of the Machinists Union (IAM), requested 
administrative reconsideration of the subject petition for trade 
adjustment assistance (TAA). The denial notice was published in the 
Federal Register on August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41792).
    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 produce school and 
office furniture.
    The union submitted annual U.S. import data from the Department of 
Commerce for furniture which would include the products produced by 
Smith System. This impact data, however, was included in the 
Department's investigation.
    The Department's denial is based on the fact that the ``contributed 
importantly'' test of the Group Eligibility Requirements of the Trade 
Act was not met. worker separations were the result of a corporate 
decision to consolidate its production of furniture at other domestic 
locations. During the consolidation period, employment at the Princeton 
plant decreased while employment at the corporate transfer plants 
increased commensurately. There was no decline in corporate sales 
during this period.
    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 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, DC, this 25th day of November 1994.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 94-30100 Filed 12-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M