Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 65604-65605 [E7-22747]

Download as PDF 65604 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,376] Dixie Consumer Products, LLC, Dixie Products Division, a Subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific, Including Leased Workers of Staffmark, Los Angeles, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation; Findings of the Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 29, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Dixie Consumer Products, LLC, Dixie Products Division, a subsidiary of Georgia Pacific, Los Angeles, California. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA– W–62,268) which expires on October 23, 2009. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of November 2007. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7–22749 Filed 11–20–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–61,324] pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Ford Motor Company, Vehicle Operations Division, Wixom Assembly Plant, Including On-Site Leased Workers of G-Tech Professional Staffing, Inc., MSX and Aerotech, Wixom, MI; Amended Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration on August 22, 2007. The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50128). On our own motion, the Department reviewed the Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the assembly of Lincoln Towncars. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:56 Nov 20, 2007 Jkt 214001 The review of the investigation record shows that the Department inadvertently excluded from the certification on-site leased workers from G-Tech Professional Staffing, Inc., MSX and Aerotech. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of Ford Motor Company, Vehicle Operations Division, Wixom Assembly Plant to be considered leased workers. Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of G-Tech Professional Staffing, Inc., MSX and Aerotech working on-site at the Wixom, Michigan location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers employed at Ford Motor Company, Vehicle Operations Division, Wixom Assembly Plant, Wixom, Michigan who were adversely-impacted by a shift in production to Canada. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–61,324 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Ford Motor Company, Vehicle Operations Division, Wixom Assembly Plant, including on-site leased workers of G-Tech Professional Staffing, Inc., MSX and Aerotech, Wixom, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 12, 2006, through August 22, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of November 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7–22746 Filed 11–20–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,056] Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated October 15, 2007, the petitioner 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 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 notice was signed on September 17, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56385). 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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers of Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was based on the finding that the worker group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm performed financial services, such as invoice processing, general accounting, helpdesk support and travel and expense services. The investigation further revealed that although production of article(s) occurred within the firm or appropriate subdivision, the workers do not support this production. The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its determination and conveys that workers of the subject firm should be investigated on the basis of the secondary impact, and should be certified eligible for TAA as ‘‘downstream producers’’. The petitioner alleges that workers of the subject firm are ‘‘value-added production workers’’ because they provide the processing of payments of invoices for the vendors that Glaxo Smith Kline uses to produce their drugs. In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance on the basis of the secondary impact, the workers’ firm has to be a downstream producer (final finishing or assembly) for, a primary firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance. In this case, however, workers of Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, did not produce a product and did not perform finishing or final assembly of articles produced by a primary firm from August 2006 through August of 2007. Financial services, such as the processing of payments of invoices for the vendors are E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM 21NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Notices not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. No production took place at the subject facility and the workers did not support production of articles at any affiliated firm in the relevant time period. Thus the subject firm workers are not eligible under secondary impact. The petitioner also alleges that workers of the subject firm lost their jobs ‘‘due to off-shoring the services to India.’’ The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm produce an article. However, the investigation determined that workers of Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania do not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 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 in Washington, DC, this 14th day of November, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7–22747 Filed 11–20–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations 65605 will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than December 3, 2007. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than December 3, 2007. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of November 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. APPENDIX.—TAA PETITIONS INSTITUTED BETWEEN 11/5/07 AND 11/9/07 Subject firm (petitioners) Location Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (State) ............................ Ceratizit South Carolina (Comp) ................................................ Eastprint, Inc. (Comp) ................................................................ PQ Corporation (Union) .............................................................. Stanric, Inc. (State) ..................................................................... Small-Pak Chemicals, Inc. (Comp) ............................................ A.O. Smith Electrical Products Company (Comp) ..................... Walter Drake, Inc. (Comp) ......................................................... Simclar (North America), Inc. (Comp) ........................................ Consistent Textile Industries, Inc. (Comp) ................................. Bernard Chaus/Cynthia Steffe (UNITE) ..................................... 4 Corners Pine/Div. of Wells Eagle, Inc. (Wkrs) ........................ Avery Dennison Corporation (Comp) ......................................... Computer Sciences Corporation (Comp) ................................... Flowserve Corporation (Comp) .................................................. Johnson Hosiery Mills, Inc. (Comp) ........................................... RCN Corporation (Comp) ........................................................... Curtain and Drapery Fashions (Comp) ...................................... KLA–Tencor (Wkrs) .................................................................... Tanner Companies LLC (Wkrs) ................................................. Stoney Point Products (State) .................................................... Flextronics Enclosures (Wkrs) .................................................... CNI/UTI (Wkrs) ........................................................................... Home Products International (Comp) ......................................... Covalence Plastic (State) ........................................................... Pageland Screen Printers (Comp) ............................................. Bierner Hat Company (Comp) .................................................... LEM Industries, Inc. (Comp) ...................................................... Lawrence Sewing (Wkrs) ........................................................... Arrow Industries, Inc./Arrow Home Fashion (Comp) ................. Huffman Finishing Company, Inc. (Wkrs) .................................. Councill Company LLC (Wkrs) ................................................... Mirador International, LLC (Wkrs) .............................................. Tyler, TX .................................. Columbia, SC ........................... North Andover, MA .................. Anderson, IN ............................ Fajardo, PR .............................. Pineville, NC ............................ Scottsville, KY .......................... Holyoke, MA ............................. Winterville, NC ......................... Dallas, NC ................................ Secaucus, NJ ........................... Trout Creek, MT ....................... Greensboro, NC ....................... Dallas, TX ................................ Dayton, OH .............................. Hickory, NC .............................. Wilkes-Barre, PA ...................... Lowell, NC ................................ Tucson, AZ ............................... Rutherfordton, NC .................... New Ulm, MN ........................... Youngsville, NC ....................... Cadillac, MI .............................. Mooresville, NC ........................ City of Industry, CA .................. Pageland, SC ........................... Dallas, TX ................................ Obetz, OH ................................ San Francisco, CA ................... Anaheim, CA ............................ Granite Falls, NC ..................... Denton, NC .............................. High Point, NC ......................... pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES TA–W 62405 62406 62407 62408 62409 62410 62411 62412 62413 62414 62415 62416 62417 62418 62419 62420 62421 62422 62423 62424 62425 62426 62427 62428 62429 62430 62431 62432 62433 62434 62435 62436 62437 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:56 Nov 20, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM Date of institution 21NON1 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/08/07 11/08/07 11/08/07 11/08/07 11/08/07 11/08/07 11/09/07 Date of petition 11/02/07 11/02/07 11/01/07 11/05/07 11/01/07 11/02/07 11/02/07 10/19/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 10/26/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 11/02/07 10/19/07 11/01/07 11/02/07 10/31/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 11/06/07 10/26/07 11/06/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/07/07 11/06/07 11/05/07 11/07/07 11/07/07

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65604-65605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,056]


Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, 
Philadelphia, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated October 15, 2007, the petitioner 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 September 17, 2007 and 
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56385).
    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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers 
of Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was based on the finding that the worker 
group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of 
the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation revealed that workers of the 
subject firm performed financial services, such as invoice processing, 
general accounting, helpdesk support and travel and expense services. 
The investigation further revealed that although production of 
article(s) occurred within the firm or appropriate subdivision, the 
workers do not support this production.
    The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its 
determination and conveys that workers of the subject firm should be 
investigated on the basis of the secondary impact, and should be 
certified eligible for TAA as ``downstream producers''. The petitioner 
alleges that workers of the subject firm are ``value-added production 
workers'' because they provide the processing of payments of invoices 
for the vendors that Glaxo Smith Kline uses to produce their drugs.
    In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a 
certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance on the 
basis of the secondary impact, the workers' firm has to be a downstream 
producer (final finishing or assembly) for, a primary firm whose 
workers are certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance.
    In this case, however, workers of Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared 
Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, did not 
produce a product and did not perform finishing or final assembly of 
articles produced by a primary firm from August 2006 through August of 
2007. Financial services, such as the processing of payments of 
invoices for the vendors are

[[Page 65605]]

not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 
222 of the Trade Act. No production took place at the subject facility 
and the workers did not support production of articles at any 
affiliated firm in the relevant time period. Thus the subject firm 
workers are not eligible under secondary impact.
    The petitioner also alleges that workers of the subject firm lost 
their jobs ``due to off-shoring the services to India.''
    The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if 
it was determined that workers of the subject firm produce an article. 
However, the investigation determined that workers of Glaxo Smith 
Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
do not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

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 in Washington, DC, this 14th day of November, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-22747 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P