Slip Op. 07-160 UNI TED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATI ONAL

TRADE

____________________________________ : FORMER EMPL OYEES OF : J OY TECHNO L OGI ES, I NC., :

: P l ai n t i ff s , : Be fo re : W ALLAC H, J u d ge

: Court No.: 06-00088 v . : : P UB LIC VE RSI ON UNI TED S TAT ES S EC RE TAR Y OF : L AB OR , : : De fe nd ant. : ____________________________________: [Pla int if fs ’ R ule 56 .1 Mo tio n f

or Re mand to t he De pa rtme nt o f L a

bo r f or F ur the r I nv e sti g atio n is GRANTED, a

nd Def endant’ s Denial of Ce rtification is REMANDED.] Dated: Oc tober 31, 2007 L eB oeuf, L amb, Gre en & MacRae L L P, (Melvin S. S chwe chter and Emily

A. Dephour e) f

or Pla int if fs F or me r E mpl oye e s o f Joy

Te c hn olo g ie s. Peter D. K eisler, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Jeanne E. Da

vidson, Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justi ce ( J oan M. Stentiford); and Stephe n Jone s, Of fi c e of the Sol ic ito r, U. S. D e pa

rtme nt o f L a

bo r, fo r D e fe nd ant Unit e d St ate s.
OP IN ION Wallach, Jud ge: I IN TR OD UC TIO N This matter come s befor e the Court on conside ration of the United States Depa rtment of L abor’ s (“L abor” ) third re mand re sults denying Plaintiffs, F ormer E mploy ees of J oy Tec hnologie s (“F EO Joy ”), c ertifica tion for Tra de Adjustment Assistance ( “TAA ”). Plaintiffs
s e e k r e v i e wo f

L a b o r ’ s d e t e r

m i n at i o ni nJ o y T e c h n o l o g i e s , In c . ; D B A J o y M i n i n gM a c h i n e r y;2

M T
. Ve rn o nP l an t , M T
. Ve rn o n , I L ; No t i ce o f N ega t i v e D et erm i n at i o no nR em an d , 7 2 Fe d
. R eg. 1,771 (January

16, 2007), C.R. at 429 (“Rema nd Results”). As set for

th below, the Remand Results are not supported by substantial evidence or otherw ise in acc ordanc e with law. There fore , this matter is remande d to L abor f or fur ther investig ation consistent with the instructions contained he rein.
II BACK GR OUND J oy Tec hnologie s, Inc. (“ J oy ”) is a subsidiar y of Joy Global Inc., which is “ the world’s le a din g ” manu fa c tur e r o f u nd e rgro un d mi nin gma c hin e ry and surf a c e min inge qu ipm e nt u se d in the e xtra c tio n o f c oa l, m ine ra ls a nd or e s. Joy Gl ob a l Inc ., Annu a l Re po rt (F or m 10 -K), at 5 (O c tob e r 3 1, 20 04 ), Con fi de nti a l Re c or d ( “ C.R .” ) a t 38 . Joy Gl ob a l Inc . is he a dq

ua rt e re d in M i l w a u k e e , W i s c o n s i n , an d

m a i n t a i n s o p e r at i o n s th r o u g h o u tth e U n i t e d S t at e s , an d

g l o b a l l y, with annual sale s in ex cess of $1.4 billion. I d. at 5, 11-12, 16, C. R. at 38, 44-45, 49. Joy Global Inc. has two pr imary

business seg ments, one of whic h is J oy Tec hnologie s, Inc. d/b/a Joy Mining Machine ry , a De lawar e cor poration hea dquarte red in Warr endale , Pennsylvania. L etter f rom L awr e nc e J. L e pid i, D ir . o f L aw a nd Go v’ t A ff

a ir s, Joy Min ingMa c h. (“ L e pid i” ) t o D e l- Min Amy Chen, Prog ram Ana ly st, Div. of Trade Adjustment Assistance, De p’t of L abor ( “Chen” ) (January 6, 2006) at 1-2, C.R. at 169-70. Joy has extensive opera

tions in t he United States a nd
overse as with key

operations in t he United King dom, Australia, South Africa and China. I d. On September 23, 2005, Joy

closed its manufa cturingoperations in Mt . Ver non, I llinois . J oy Response to Dep’ t of L abor B us. Confidential Data Reque st (“CDR”) ( August 15, 2005) at 1, C.R. at 12. All workers at the Mt. Vernon plant we re f ired. De p’t of L abor, F indings of the3

Investig ation (September 15, 2005), C.R. at 129.

A Labor’s F irst TAA Investigation On August 2, 2005, prior to the plant closing , the International Brothe rhood of Boiler maker s, Iron Ship Builders, B lacksmiths, Forg ers a nd Helper s, L ocal 483 ( “Union”) filed a petition for Tra de Adjustment Assistance w ith L abor a lleg ing tha t the pendingjob losses were a result of produc tion shifting abr oad. Petition for Tra de Adjustment Assistance ( “Petition”) (August 2, 2005), C.R. at 2. I n support of its petition, the Union submi tted a shipping rec eipt ind ic atin gthat c ra

wl e r t ra c k f ra me s ma de in M e xico ha d b e e n s hip pe d to the Mt. Ve rn on pla nt i n Au g us t 20 05 . Sh ipp ingRe c e ipt fr om E xtre me Ma c h. & F a b, Inc . to Joy

Min ingMa c h. (Augus t 16, 2005), C.R. at 23; Transportation Receipt from Joy Mining Mac h. (August 16, 2005), C.R. at 24; Memorandum of L aw in Support of Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Motion to Remand the Case to the Dep’ t of L abor f

or F urther I

nvestig ation and Motion to Suppl ement the Admin. Rec ord (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”) at 3. The Union also submitt ed photog raphs of underground mining machiner y marke d “He cho in Mexico.” Fax to Devon Richar dson, Analy st, Dep’t of L abor, f rom Un ion Committe e , Joy

Min ingMa c h. (Augus t 17 , 2 00 5) at 4- 7, C.R . at 25 -2 8; s e e a lso Re ply Memorandum of

L aw in Support of Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Motion to Remand the Case to the Depa rtment of L abor f

or F urther I

nvestig ation and Motion to Suppl ement the Administrative Record ( “Plaintiffs’ Reply”), Ex. B. The De partment of L abor initiated a n investigation into TAA eligibility for the F EO Joy on August 9, 2005. Neg ative De terminations Reg ardingEligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and A lternative Tr ade A djustment Assist ance (“F irst Neg ative4

Deter mination”) at 2, C.R. at 133 (September 15, 2005). As par

t of its investigation, L abor instructed Joy

to provide a B usiness Confidential Data Reque st which was c ompleted by Mr. L awr ence L epidi, an attorne y for Joy . CDR, C.R . at 12; see a lso L etter f rom J oy ce N duku, Int’l T r a d e A n a l ys t , D i v . o f

T r a d e A d j u s t m e n tA s s i s t an c e , D e p ’ to f L a b o r t o M r . M at tH a l e y, Manag er, H uman Res., J oy Mining Mac h. (August 16, 2005), C.R. at 19. I n the questionnaire , J oy acc ounted for its ac tiviti es at the Mt. Ve rnon fa cility and stated that the plant “builds and rebuilds Shuttle Cars, rebuilds elec trical motors used in ce rtain ty pes of miningmachiner

y , and rebuilds g ear

box es for armore d fac e conve y ors.” CDR at 1, C.R. at 12. In addition, Mr. L epidi [di scussed the w ork of the Mt. Ve rnon plant]. J oy also che cked boxes indicating[i nformation reg ardingits levels of sales a nd productions]. W ith respec t to a shift in production, J oy stated that “the wor

k beingperf

ormed at Mt. Vernon is beingtransfe rre d to a new f acility ,” id. at 1, C.R . at 12 , a

nd [dis c us se d th e re a so ns fo r t ra ns fe rr ingthe Mt. Ve rn on

pla nt w or k a nd state d th at]

“ the pr od uc tio n is be ingsh if

te d to
. . . K e ntu c ky

a s p a rt of an o ve ra ll r e str

uc tur ing .” I d. at 5, C.R
. at 16. Duri ngits inv e sti g atio n, L a bo r Ana ly st, De vo n Ri c ha rd so n, wr ote a

Me mor and

um t o F ile i nw h i c hh e s t at e d

th at[ h e h a d

r e c e i v e d J o y ’ s e x p l an at i o no f

i t s p r o d u c t i o np r a c t i c e s ]
. In addition, the memorandum re counted a n email sent by

Mr. L epidi on August 25, 2005 to Mr. Richardson in which Mr . L epidi [aga in discussed J oy ’s produc tion practice s]. On September

15, 2005 L abor issued its first neg ative dete rmination denying the For mer Employ ees of

J oy Tec hnologie s (“F EO Joy ”) e ligibility to apply for TA A and Alter

native Tra de Adjustment Assistance (“ ATAA” ) for Older Worker s. First Ne g ative De termination, C.R. at 132;
see a lso Notice of De terminations Reg ardingEligibility To Apply

for Worker

Adjustment19 U. S.C. § 2 27 2( a ) p ro vid e s th at: 1 (a) In g ener al. A g roup of wor kers ( including w orker s in any ag ricultural f

irm or subdivision of an agricultural f

irm) shall be c ertified by

the Secr etar

y as elig ible to apply

for a djustment assistance under this cha

pter pursua

nt to a petition filed under se ction 2271 of this titl e if the Secre tary deter mines that-- (1) a signific ant number or

proportion of the w orker s in such worke rs’ fir m, or an appropr iate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or par tially separ ated, or

are threatened to become totally

or par tially separ ated; and (2) ( A) (i) the sales or

production, or both, of suc h firm or subdivision have de cre ased a b s o l u t e l y; (ii) imports of article s like or direc tly competitive with article s produce d by such firm or subdivision have incre ased; a nd (iii) the incre ase in imports descr ibed in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such worke rs’ sepa

ration or thre at of sepa

ration and to the de cline in the sale s or produc tion of such firm or subdivision; or (B ) (i) the re ha s been a

shift in production by

such worke rs’ fir

m or subdivision t o a fore ign c ountry

of ar ticles like or dire ctly

competitive with article s which ar e produc ed by such firm or subdivision; and (i i) (I ) t he c ountr y to whic h th e wo rk e rs ’ f

ir m ha s sh if

te d p ro du c tio n o f t

he art ic le s is a pa rt y to a fr e e tr a de a g re e me nt w iththe Un ite d St ate s; (I I ) t he c ountr y to whic h th e wo rk e rs ’ f

ir m ha s sh if

te d p ro du c tio n o f t

he art ic le s is a be ne fi c iary

c ountr y un de r t he An de an T ra de Pr e fe re nc e Ac t, A fr ic an G ro wth a nd Op po rt un ity Act, or the Caribbea

n Ba sin Economic Recove ry Act; or (I I I ) there has bee n or is likely to be an incr ease in imports of articles that a re like or direc tly competitive with article s which ar e or w ere produce d by such firm or subdivision. 5 Assistance ( “Notice of De terminations”), 70 F ed. Reg . 62,344 (Oc tober 31, 2005). L abor conclude d, based on its investig ation, that the statutory criter ia for T AA elig ibilit y pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § 2 27 2( a )( 2) (A ) we re no t me t be c a us e sa le s a

nd e mpl oy me nt r ate s h a d in c re a se d o ve ra ll 1 duringthe applica

ble per iod and that the compone nt parts imported fr om Mex ico wer e not “like or direc tly

competitive” with the f

inal products produc ed at the pla nt and wer e shipped only due to a lack in domestic c apac ity . First Ne g ative De termination at 3, C.R. at 134. Henc e, the imp or ts w e re no t a

c on tr ibutin gfa c tor

in t he lay of f. I t f ur the rm or e , c on c lud e d th at th e e lig ibi lity require ment pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)( 2)(B ) wa s not met beca use the shift in production
wa s to ano the r d ome sti c fa c ili ty and ha d n ot s hif

te d a br oa d. I d. L a

bo r b a se d it s f

ind ingthat a ll6

Mt. Vernon pr oduction had shifted to the L ebanon, K entucky fac ility on J oy ’s J uly

29, 2005 press re lease in its company -wide ne wsletter, in which it stated that J oy was to open a

new faci li ty in Ken tu cky

whi ch w il l “m anu facture s hu tt le c ars , reb ui ldmo to rs a ndrebu il d AFC g ear case s,” and in re liance on Mr . L epidi’s re peate d assura nces. F indings of the Investig ation at 3, C.R. at 131 . L abor ba sed its denial of the pe tition for ATAA on the unde rlying de nial of TAA
e lig ibi lity up on wh ic h A TA A c e rt if

ic atio n is c on tin g e nt. F ir st N e g ativ e De te rm inatio n at 4, C.R
. at 135. On Oc tober 31, 2005, L abor published its notice of ne g ative dete rmination in the Fe dera l Reg ister. Notice of

Deter minations, 70 Fed. Reg . 62,345.

B Labor’s Rec onsid erat ion (Second) TAA Investigation On Novembe r 3, 2005, two F ormer E mploy ees of J oy , J erome Tobin and John M oore,
su bmi tte d a re qu e st f or re c on sid e ratio n to L a

bo r. L e tte r f

ro m Jer ome To bin

a nd JohnMo or e to Timothy F. Sullivan, Dir., Div. of Tr ade A djustment Assist ance , Dep’ t of L abor (November 3, 2005), C.R. at 146. In their petition, the FEO J oy explained that in addition to t he ac tiviti es detailed in L abor’ s neg ative dete rmination, the principal f unction of worke rs at the Mt. Ve rnon plant was to supply

components of miningmachiner y to J oy ’s Fr anklin, Pennsylvania plant as a n up str e am su

pp lie r, but th at Mt . V e rn on wa s a lso the sit e of

manu fa c tur e of

the “ Hi g h Wa ll mining sy stem, Flexible Convey or Tra in haulag e sy stem and the orig inal Articulate d Battery Haulag e Cars.” I d. In addition, the FEO J oy stated that betwe en 2004 and 2005 the plant had been use d to produce 69 conveyors, 72 conve y or supports, and 86 c raw ler tra ck fr ames for the Fr anklin, Pennsylvania site and that this production had shifted to Mexi co to a c ompany by the7

name of Equimin. I d. On Novembe r 16, 2005, the De partment of L abor grante d the FE O J oy ’s reque st for re consideration and ag ree d to conduct fur ther investig ations based on ne w information provided by

the petitioners. De p’t of L abor, N otice of A ffirmative Deter mination Reg ardingApplication for Re consideration, C.R . at 153 (Nove mber 16, 2005). T he wor kers
wer e per mitted to file a new TA A petition as seconda rily -af fec ted worke rs on the bac k of L abor’ s
a ff ir mativ e TA A c e rt if

ic atio n o f Joy ’s F ra

nk lin , Pe nn sylva

nia pla nt. F a x fr om C he n to B ill Stagg s (Novembe r 15, 2005), C.R. at 152. On Novembe r 17, 2005, B ill S tag g s, the FEO J oy ’s union repr esentative, rec eived a n
e ma il f ro m Matt H a le y

of Joy ’s human r e so ur c e s d e pa rtme nt, de nyingthe F EO Joy a c c e ss t o information re lating to the F ranklin, Pennsylvania fa cility . Email from Matt Hale y , Manag er, Human Resourc es, Joy

Mining Mac h. to Bill Stagg s (Novembe r 17, 2005) ( “Work Orde r Re qu e st” ) at 1, C.R . at 15 9. Mr . H a le y ho we ve r, did

c on fi rm that th e Mt. Ve rn on

fa c ili ty
su pp lie d th e F ra

nk lin pla nt, and that tr a c k f

ra me s f a br ic ate d in

Me xico we re fi nis he d at th e Mt. Ver non plant. I d. at 2, C.R. at 160. Mr. Haley descr ibed the Mexican compone nts as “over flow” work fr om other Joy

fac iliti es, “not wor

k Mt. Vernon doe s regularly ,” but work that was broug ht in to keep the Mt. Ve rnon fa cility open for a per iod of time for the be nefit of the e mploy ees who would lose their jobs as a r esult of the plant closure . I d. In th e c ours e of

L a bo r’ s se c on d inve sti g atio n, it r e su bmi tte d q ue sti on s to Joy

sp e c if ic a lly
c on c e rn ingwh at pa

rt s th e Mt. Ve rn on

fa c ili ty su pp lie d to the F ra

nk lin , Pe nn sylva

nia pla nt, whether fabr ication was outsourc ed to Mexico and the nature of the Mexican imports. L etter from Chen to L epidi (De cembe r 21, 2005) at 1-2, C.R. at 163-64. In response to L abor’ s qu e s ti o n s , Jo y

s u b mi tt e d [i n f o r mati o nc o n c e r

n in gJo y ’ s p r o d

u c ti o np r a c ti c e s ].8

On J anuar

y 19, 2006, the Depa

rtment of L abor issued a

Notice of Neg ative De termination on Reconsider ation and subseque ntly published a notice of

its determination in the Fe dera l Reg ister. Dep’ t of L abor, N otice of N eg ative De termination on Reconsider ation (January 19, 2006) (“ Second Ne g ative De termination”), C.R. at 180-83; Joy Tec hnologie s, Inc.; DB A J oy Mining Mac hinery ; Mt. Vernon Plant; Mt. Vernon, I L ; Notice of N eg ative De termination on Reconsider ation, 71 Fe d. Reg . 4,937 (January 30, 2006), as amended by , J oy Tec hnologie s, I nc. DB A J oy Mining Mac hinery

Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, I llinois ; Notice of N eg ative Deter mination on Reconsideration, 71 Fed. Reg . 9,162 (F ebrua ry 22, 2006). L abor de nied the FEO J oy ’s application for TAA a s seconda rily -af fec ted worke rs bec ause the TAA c ertification for F ranklin expired on J anuar y 19, 2002, prior to the re levant time per iod. Second Neg ative Deter mination at 2-3, C.R. at 181-82; see a lso Dep’t of L abor, N otice of N eg ative De termination on Reconsider ation (Corre cted) (F ebrua ry 6, 2006), C.R. at 187. L abor a ffirme d its prior finding that there had bee n no shift in production to Mex ico and that pr oducts manufa cture d in Mex ico
wer e not “like or

direc tly competitive” with those produc ed at Mt. Ve rnon. I d. at 3, C.R. at 189. L abor a lso chara cter ized any work tra nsfer red to Mexico as tempora ry assig nments of “ove rflow” work we re not norma lly

undertaken at the Mt. Ve rnon fa cility . I d.

C Labor’s Volun tary R em and (Th ird) Investigation On Marc h 15, 2006, the FE O J oy soug ht judicial appea l of L abor’ s Neg ative Deter mination. L etter f

rom J ohn P. Moore and Jerome P. Tobin to the U.S. Court of I nt’l Trade (Mar ch 15, 2006). Plaintiffs we re a ppointed counsel by

the cour t. On September 25, 2006, the9

court g rante d the par

ties’ conse nt motion t o rema nd the ca se to L abor f

or fur ther investig ation. Court Order , Ct. No. 06-00088, September 25, 2006. I n its mot ion to the court, L abor state d that the purp os e of

the vo luntary

re mand wa s to “ fu

rt he r i nv e sti g ate the e xtent of imp or ts s up pli e d to J oy Tec hnologie s, Inc fr om Mex ico, and de termine whe ther that ‘c ontributed signif icantly ’ to any movement of jobs out of the United States.” Sec’y of L abor, Consent Motion for Voluntar y Remand, Ct. No. 06-00088, September 20, 2006. Up o nr e m an d , o nS e p t e mb e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , L a

b o r r e qu e s t e d

a d d i t i o n a l i n f

o r m at i o nf r o mJ o y. L etter f rom Chen to L epidi (September 28, 2006), C.R. at 235. Spe c if ic a lly L a bo r a sk e d Joy

to ide nti fy “ c or e ” and

“ no n- c or e ” manu fa c tur ingfu nc tio ns at Mt . V e rn on , a

nd e xpla in “ wh at is meant by ‘over flow’ wor

k,” whe re the “over flow” w ork orde rs came from, a nd wher e outsource d work fr om Mt. Vernon and F ranklin we re done . I d. at 2, C.R. at 236. I n addition, L abor a sked J oy to respond to Plaintiffs’ contentions that compone nts manufac tured at Mt. Vernon we re produce d in Mex ico, that produc tion had shifted to Mexi co, and that J oy purcha sed compone nt parts fr om a Mexican supplier name d Equimin. I d. On Octobe r 13, 2006, Joy submitt ed a
r e s p o n s e t o La

b o r ’ s qu e s t i o n s . Le t t e r

f r o mLe p i d i t o C h e n( O c t o b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ) , C
. R
. at2 4 7
. In Jo y ’ s r e s p o n s e , M r . L e p id i [ a g a in d is c u s s e d

Jo y ’ s p r o d

u c ti o np r a c ti c e s . ] On Dec ember

8, 2006, L abor se nt follow up questions to J oy . L etter f rom Chen to L epidi (D e c e mbe r 8 , 2 00 6) , C. R. at 41 2. Joy re sp on de d o n D e c e mbe r 1 5, 20 08 . L e tte r f ro m L e pid i to Chen (De cembe r 15, 2006), C.R. at 414. In its response, Joy stated [more information
c o n c e r n in git s p r o d

u c ti o np r a c ti c e s ]. On Dec ember

27, 2006 and De cembe r 29, 2006, L abor f ollowed up with additional reque sts for information to J oy . On Dec ember 27, 2006, L abor r equeste d clar ification re g arding10

J oy ’s import of cr awler

trac k fra mes from Equimin. L etter f rom Chen to L epidi (De cembe r 27, 2006), C.R. at 420. On Dec ember 29, 2006, L abor sought clarific ation reg ardingthe alleg ed statements of a

J oy employ ee, Mr . Folker

ts, pertainingto the outsourcingof fa brication of continuous miners to Mexi co. L etter f rom Chen to L epidi (De cembe r 28, 2006), C.R. at 421. J oy
asser ted in its response, [and provided a dditional information reg ardingits production prac tices.] Duri ngthe re mand

pe ri od , th e F EO Joy

su bmi tte d th e a ff

ida vit s o f s e ve ra l w or

ke rs to L abor. B ucking ham Aff

., C.R. at 258-62; Cole Aff., C.R. at 268-73; L isenbey Aff., C.R. at 281- 83; Moore Af

f., C.R. at 292-96; Patterson Aff ., C.R. at 304-08; Tobin Aff., C.R. at 316-20; Vaughn Aff., C.R. at 328-32; Wilkey Aff., C.R. at 340-44; Ha

milton Aff., C.R. at 356-59; Kirkpatric k Aff., C.R. 366-70; B axley Aff., C.R. at 378-81; Cockr um Aff., C.R. at 394-96 (collec tively

“Worker A ffidavits”) . The a ffidavits contra dict J oy ’s contentions that the production of c raw ler tra ck fr ames a nd components for

continuous miners for the Fr anklin plant
wa s n ot p art

of Mt. Ve rn on ’s c or e a c tiv iti e s. Se e , e .g ., B uc kin g ham A ff . at 2, C.R . at 25 9; C ole Af f. at 2- 3, C.R . at 26 9- 70 ; L ise nb e y Af f. at 1- 2, C.R . at 28 1- 82 . Ins te a d th e wo rk e rs atte ste d to the fa c t th at th os e a c tiv iti e s w e re re g ula r, c or e manu fa c tur ingfu

nc tio ns of the Mt. Ve rn on

pla nt; that Mt. Vernon ha d alway s manufac tured c ontinuous mi ner c omponents from scr atch f or Fr anklin, and that cr awler trac k fra mes, which Joy

char acte rized as “ove rflow” work, ha d been a
r e g u l ar m anu f a c tur i n gf un c t i o natM t . V e r

n o n . Id
. ; s e e a l s o M o o r e A f f
. at3 , C
. R
. at2 9 4
. In addition, worker s demonstrated pe rsonal knowledg e of a shift in production to Mex ico duringthe rele vant time. See B ucking ham Aff . at 3-4, C.R. at 260-62; Cole Aff . at 4-5, C.R. at 271-73. Spe c if ic a lly , th e a ff

ida vit s e sta bli sh e d th at no t a ll o f t

he pr od uc tio n at Mt . V e rn on

ha d s hif te d to the L ebanon, K entucky

fac ility beca use the ne w plant does not manufa cture mining mac hinery11

c omp on e nts fr om s c ratc h. I d. ; se e a lso Joy Min ingMa c hin e ry , G lob a l Ca pli g ht, Pr e ss R e le a se (Jul y 29, 2005), C.R. at 126. On J anuar

y 8, 2007, L abor issued its third neg ative dete rmination denying T AA
cer tification for the FEO J oy . Remand Results, 72 Fed. Re g . at 1,771, C.R. at 429. L abor conclude d, based on its investig ation, that all production at Mt. Ver non had shifted to the L e ba no n, Ke ntu c ky

fa c ili ty and that th e a dd iti on a l in fo rm atio n p ro vid e d b y Pla int if fs fa ile d to satisfy the statutory

require ments for c ertification. I d. at 1,774, C.R. at 446-47. L abor state d that be c a us e the re wa s n o d e c lin e in s a le s, it c ou ld n ot i nte rp re t th e pla nt c los ur e a s a

n atte mpt to adjust to increa sed for eig n competition. I d., C.R. at 445-46. Furthe rmore, L abor r ecited individual workers’ aff

idavits, but noted that “the De partment ha s not rece ived any information to s up po rt

the a lle g atio n o f a

sh if t of pr od uc tio n a br oa d. ” I d. at 1, 77 3, C.R . at 44 2. As a re su lt, L abor de nied the F EO Joy ’s petition for ce rtification for TAA be nefits on re mand. I d. at 1,774, C.R. at 446-47. Th e c ourt ha s juri sd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (d )( 1) . O ra l argume nt w a s h e ld on September 7, 2007. III STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW The c ourt will uphold a determination by the Secr etar

y of L abor de nying c ertification for Trade Adjustment Assistance if it is supported by substantial evidence . 19 U.S.C. § 2395(b). “The finding s of fa ct by

the Secr etar

y of L abor . . . if suppor

ted by substantial evidence , shall be
c on c lus ive .” I d. ; se e a lso F or me r E mpl oye e s o f T y c o E le c s. , F ibe r O pti c s D iv. v. Un ite d St ate s, 27 CI T 685, 686, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (2003) . Substantial evidence is “more than a mere12

sc int ill a . It me ans su c h r e le va nt e vid e nc e a s a

re a so na ble min d mi g ht a c c e pt a s a de qu ate to
s u p p o rta c o n c l u s i o n . ” C o n s o l
. E d i s o nC o . v . N
. L. R
. B
. , 3 0 5 U
. S
. 1 9 7 , 2 2 9 , 5 9 S
. C t . 2 0 6 , 8 3 L. Ed. 126 (1938). H oweve r, while L abor ha s considera ble discre tion in it s investigation of TAA
c la ims , “ the re e xists a

thr e sh old re qu ir e me nt o f r e a so na

ble inq uir y .” F or me r E mpl oye e s o f B MC Software , Inc. v. United States, 454 F . Supp. 2d 1306, 1312 (CI T 2006) (c iting F ormer Employ ees of

Hawkins Oil & Gas, Inc. v. United States, 17 CI T 126, 130, 814 F. Supp. 1111 (1993). “ I f L abor f

ails to undertake a re asonable inquiry , the investig ation cannot be sustained upon substantial evidence befor e the Court.” F ormer E mploy ees of Merr ill C orp. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1345 (CI T 2005) (inter nal citations omitted). In revie wingL abor’ s deter mination, the court does not owe defe renc e to L abor if L abor’ s investigation was inadequate. I d. Indeed, Courts have not hesitated to set a side ag ency deter minations which are th e pro du ct o f “pe rfu nct ory in ves ti gati on s. ” Form er Em pl oy ees o f BMC S oft ware, Inc. , 4 54 F. Supp. 2d at 1312 (citing For mer Employ ees of

Ameriphone , Inc. v. United States, 27 CI T 1611, 16 13 , 2 88 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 35 3 ( 20 03 )) . A dd iti on a lly , “ the ru lin g s ma de on the ba sis of

tho se fi nd ing s [mu st] b e in a c c or da nc e wi th t he statut e and

no t be arb itr ary

and c a pr ic iou s, and

fo r t his purpose the la

w re quires a show ing of

rea soned ana ly sis.” For

mer Employ ees of

Rohm and Haa s Co., v. United States, 27 CI T 116, 122, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (2003) (quoting Int'l Union v. Marsha ll, 584 F.2d 390, 396 n.26 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). For g ood cause shown the cour t may
rema nd the ca se to L abor “ to take fur ther e vidence .” I d. at 121 (c iting 19 U.S.C. § 2395(b)).

“ Go od c a us e e xists if

the Se c re tary ’s c ho se n me tho do logy is s o ma rr e d th at hi s f

ind ingis arbitra ry or of suc h a natur e that it could not be base d on substantial evidence .” F ormer Employ ees of

Ba rry Callebaut v. United States, 25 CI T 1226, 1308, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (2001)13

(ci ti ng Form er Em pl oy ees o f L in den App arel Co rp. v. Uni tedS tat es, 13 CI T 4 67 , 4 69 , 7 15 F. Supp. 378 (1989)).
IV DI SCU SSIO N A Labor’s Negative Det erm ination is Not Sup ported by Su bstantial E vidence Because the R ecor d is In consistent and L abor F ailed to Obtain the Ne cessar y Inf orm ation Regarding Volume of Imports and Sh if t in Pr oduction 1 The Recor d is In consistent on Critical Issues Plaintiffs argue that L abor’ s determination is not supported by substantial evidence be c a us e L a bo r f a ile d to take int o a c c ount i nc on sis te nc ie s in the re c or d a

nd a de qu ate ly

inv e sti g ate the FE O J oy ’s alleg ations. Plainti ffs’ Motion at 14-15. Plaintiffs, inter a lia, contend that L abor
a do pte d Joy ’s c ha

ra c te ri zat ion

of “ c or e ” and

“ no n- c or e ” a c tiv iti e s a

nd dis c ounte d th e wo rk e rs ’ sworn af fidavits, despite its obligation to conduc t its i nvestig ation with “the utmost reg ard f or the int e re st o f t

he pe tit ion ingwo rk e rs .” I d. at 15 -1 6 ( c iti ngF or me r E mpl oye e s o f O xfor d Auto U.A.W., L ocal 2088 v. United States, Slip Op. 2003-129, 2003 Ct. Intl. Trade L EXI S 128, at *23 (CI T 2003)); see also For mer Employ ees of

BMC Softwar e, Inc., 454 F . Supp. 2d at 1312. Pla int if fs argue that L a

bo r’ s inve sti g atio n o f t

he imp or ts w a s in a de qu ate be c a

us e L a bo r f a ile d to ob ta in q ua nti tativ e imp or

t data fr om Joy on wh ic h to ba se its de te rm inatio n. Se e , e .g ., Pla int if fs ’ Re p ly at 1
- 2
. Pl a inti f

f s p o int t o th e r e c o r d

e v id e n c e [c o n c e r

n in gJo y ’ s p r o d

u c ti o np r a c ti c e s ]. Plaintiffs’ Motion at 16 (citing CDR at 2- 3, C.R. at 13-14, L etter f rom Chen to L epidi (De cembe r 15, 2006) at 1-2, C.R. at 414-15) . Plaintiffs argue that L abor a cted c ontrary to statute by

stating that it did not need import data to make its deter mination because J oy ’s over all sales did not14

decline dur ing the rele vant per iod. I d. at 16-17. [ ]. De fe nd ant’ s Me mor and um i n O pp os iti on

to P la int if

fs ’ M e mor and

um o f P oints and Authorities in Support of USCI T R. 56.1 Motion for J udg ment Upon the Ag ency Record (“D efe ndant’s Response” ) at 21-22. A s a re sult, Defenda nt concludes that the rec ord does not support a findingthat J oy worke rs lost their jobs as a re sult of the Mexi can imports. I d. at 22. Ind e e d, De fe nd ant a sse rt s th at th e re le va nt q ue sti on in t his c a se is n ot whe the r Joy imp or te d p art s fr om M e xico , b ut “ wh e the r Joy be g an p ur c ha sin gfr om M e xico c omp on e nts that w e re Mt. Ve rn on ’s c or e fu

nc tio n. ” I d. at 19 . D e fe nd ant r e je c ts Pl a int if

fs ’ c on te nti on

that L a bo r s ho uld have obta ined additional import data fr om J oy , and maintain that L abor c orre ctly relied on [J oy ’s information conc erningits production prac tices]. I d. at 22-23. De fenda nt contends that L abor ha d n o r e a so n to do ub t Joy ’s state me nts , a nd that Pla int if

fs ’ e nti re c a se is unf

ound e d b e c a

us e it i s based on “ speculation fueled by nothing more than see ing a fewparts, on one oc casion, mar ked ‘hec ho in Mex ico.’” I d. at 23-24. The re cord is inconsistent on the issue of what constituted “c ore” and “non- core ” functions at the Mt. Ve rnon plant. De fenda nt contends that it was cor rec t in relying on conclusory

statements made by

J oy that cra wler tra ck fr ames, subseque ntly imported from Me xico , w e re pr od

uc e d o nly on an o ve rf low ba sis at Mt . V e rn on . T he wo rk e r a ff ida vit s ho we ve r, are e vid e nc e to t he c on tr ary . Se e , e .g ., B uc kin g ham A ff . at 2- 4, C.R . at 25 9- 61 ; Co le A f f
. at2 , C
. R
. at2 6 9 ; V a

u g h nA f f
. at3
- 4 , C
. R
. at

3 3 0
- 3 1 ; W i l k e y

A f f
. at3
- 4 , C
. R
. at3 4 2
- 4 3
. In sworn af fidavits, the worke rs stated that c raw ler tra ck fr ames c onstitut ed 30% to 50% of the total output of the plant duringthe re levant per iod, and that manufa cturingcomponents for other Joy fac iliti es wa s, and had a lway s been, a regular manuf

actur ing f unction of Mt. Ver

non. See15

Pla int if fs ’ R e ply at 6- 7 ( c iti ngWor

ke r A ff ida vit s) . T he se state me nts we re un a c c ounte d f or in L a bo r’ s f ind ing s. L a

bo r’ s d e te rm inatio n mu st b e su pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e and

may re ly on unverifie d information supplied by company officia ls, only

if there are no obvious
c on tr a dic tio ns in t

he re c or d. Se e , e .g ., F or

me r E mpl oye e s o f B arr

y Ca lle ba ut v . U nit e d St ate s, 357 F.3d 1377, 1383 ( Fe d. Cir. 2004); 19 U.S.C. § 2395(b). Her e, the c ontradictions ar e obvious and pre clude a

conclusion that L abor’ s decision was ba sed on substantial evidenc e. F ur the rm or e , th e te st f

or wh e the r P la int if

fs are e lig ibl e fo r T AAdu e to i nc re a se d im po rt s is: (1) worke rs must have be en totally (or pa rtially) sepa

rate d from their w ork; (2) pr oduction or
sa le s mu st h ave de c re a se d a bs olute ly ; and

(3 ) i mpo rt s o f a

rt ic le s li ke or

dir e c tly c omp e tit ive wi th article s produce d by

the subject fa cility

must have incre ased, a

nd (4) the inc rea se must have contributed importantly

to the worke rs sepa

ration, and to the de cline in sales or production. 19 U.S.C. §§ 2272(a)(1) and 2272(a )(2) (A). L abor c orre ctly conclude d that (1) wor

kers we re separ ated; and ( 2) produc tion declined absolutely due to the plant closure . See Remand Results at 1,774, C.R. at 443. However , with respec t to the third prong , L abor state d in its determination that: Even if ther e we re inc rea sed subject f irm imports during the r eleva nt period, the incre ased imports could not have “contr ibuted importantly to such total or par

tial separ ation, or threat thereof , and to such de cline in sales or production” be cause sales for J oy incre ased dur ing the rele vant per iod. I d., C.R. at 445. The statute r equire s that increa sed imports contribute to the sepa ration and to the de cline in sales or produc tion, not both. S ee 19 U .S.C. § 2272(a). L abor a g ree d that production dec lined
c omp le te ly . Re mand

Re su lts at 1, 77 4, C.R . at 44 3. F ur the rm or e , L a

bo r s tate d th at data previously

provided by

J oy ref lected [information conc erningJ oy ’s produc tion practice s]. C DR16

at 2-3, C.R. at 13-14, Work Orde r Request at 1, C.R. at 159, R emand Results at 1,774, C.R. at 445. These two statements are inconsistent beca use over flow work br oug ht in from Mexi co constitutes “imports” for pur poses of the TA A elig ibilit y require ment, and ther efor e do not support L abor’ s conclusion.
2

Labo r F ail e d t o Ob ta in t he Da ta Ne c e ssa r y t o M ake a D e te r m ina ti on Regar din g the Volum e of For eign Im ports and S hif t in Pr oduction Pla int if fs c on te nd

that L a bo r f a ile d to ob ta in i nf

or matio n f ro m Joy re g ard ingthe vo lum e of imports from Mexico and to support its finding that no shift in production had oc curr ed. Plaintiffs say

that L abor ma de only

a cur sory attempt to obtain a list of its i mports of mining
m a c h i n e r y c o mp o n e n t s b e f

o r e th e th i r d

r e m an d i n v e s t i g at i o n , r e qu e s t i n gth i s i n f o r m at i o no n l y a
we e k b e fo re iss uin gits de te rm inatio n, and thr ou g ho ut t

he inv e sti g atio n f

a ili ngto util ize its subpoena pow er to obtain outstandinginformation. Plaintiffs’ Motion at 18. Plainti ffs fu rt he rm or e , c on te nd

that it wa s im po ssi ble fo r L a

bo r t o d e te rm ine wh e the r i nc re a se d im po rt s
c on tr ibute d im

po rt antl y to t he e mpl oye e s’ se pa

ra tio n f ro m th e ir job s b e c a us e Joy did no t su bmi t
any imp or t data to L a bo r a nd L a bo r, in t ur n, did no t ha ve any imp or t data up on wh ic h to ba se its conclusion. I d. at 19. As a r esult, Plainti ffs a rgue that L abor’ s decision does not mee t the substantial evidence standard. I d. at 19-20. Withre sp e c t to pr ov inga sh if t in pr od uc tio n, Pla int if

fs c on te nd

that th e re is a

mpl e evidenc e in the re cord that J oy shifted produc tion of mining mac hinery components, like or direc tly competitive with those forme rly manufa cture d at Mt. Vernon to Me x ico. I d. at 20. Plaintiffs submit ted af

fidavits and photog raphs, a nd J oy attested to [information conce rningJ oy ’s17

production pra ctices.] I d. (citingL etter f rom L epidi to Chen (J anuar y 6, 2006) at 2, C.R. at 170; L etter f rom L epidi to Chen (Dec ember 15, 2006) at 1, C.R. at 414). Plaintiffs contend that L abor did not at any

point during the investigations rece ive ver ifiable data with actua l work orde rs from Mt. Vernon or

import data, and the ref

ore should not have relied on Joy ’s statements to the contra ry . I d. at 20-21; see also Remand Results at 1,774, C.R. at 444. Def endant a rgues that L abor’ s conclusion that Plaintiffs did not lose their jobs because of incre ased imports is supported by substantial evidence on the re cord be cause the job losses were
a re sult of [ J oy ’s dec isions concer ning its produc tion practice s] and not to M exico or any other
c ountr y . D e fe nd ant’ s Re sp on se at 24 . With r e sp e c t to L a bo r’ s r e lia

nc e on Joy ’s state me nts , Def endant c ontends that it is appropriate f or the Sec reta

ry of L abor, a s a g ener al matter to re ly on unverifie d statements by

company officia ls, when nothing in the rec ord “sug g ests that the information provided is inac curate or unre liable.” I d. at 15. Def endant c ites to authority

that L abor ne ed not ver ify

information that it deems “c reditworthy” and that does not contradic t the
re c or d e vid e nc e . I d. (c iti ngF or me r E mpl oye e s o f B arr

y Ca lle ba ut, 35 7 F .3 d at 13 83 ). De fe nd ant, in fac t, seeks to establish a pr actice by L abor of rely ing on suc h “unver ified” infor mation and points to cases this prac tice wa s upheld by the cour ts. I d. at 15-16 (c iting L ocal 167, Int’l Molders and A llied Workers’ Union AF L -CI O v. United States, 643 F .2d 26, 31 (1st Cir. 1981); United Steel Workers of A m., L ocal 1082 v. United States, 15 CI T 121, 122 (1991); F ormer Employ ees of

Kleiner ts, I nc. v. United States, 23 CI T 647, 653, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (1999) ). Def endant f urthermor e ar g ues that “[a]ll of plaintiffs’ alleg ations were car efully investigated by L abor a nd ref uted by the information provide d by the company” and that there is no re ason L abor should not have re lied on the information provide d by J oy . I d. at 20. Def

endant c ites Forme r18

Employ ees of

Ba rry Callebaut v. United States, 357 F .3d at 1383, for the proposition that relianc e on unver ified compa ny statements in and of itself is suff icient to constitute substantial evidenc e to support a ne g ative dete rmination. Defe ndant’s Response at 28. Defe ndant contends that the evidenc e provide d by Plaintiffs is ins ufficie nt to establish any connec tion between Joy
and [oth e r m anu fa c tur e rs ], w hic h w ou ld i nd ic ate a sh if t in pr od uc tio n o f c or e manu fa c tur ingto Mexi co of w ork pre viously undertaken at Mt. Ve rnon. I d. at 24-25. De fenda nt argues that Joy adequately

explained the connec tion between itself a nd [ot her ma

nufac turers] and that Joy

cea sed doing busine ss with [ other manuf actur ers]. I d. at 25-26. De fenda nt also contends that the pictures Plaintiffs see k to admit as evidenc e depic t roof supports and not c raw ler tra cks, the production of whic h is the core function Plaintiffs alleg e had shifte d. I d. Her e, L abor did not base its decision on substantial evidence in the rec ord. Plaintiffs
re qu e ste d th at L a

bo r o bta in w or

k o rd e rs , c us tom s r e c or ds and re c e ipt s o f i mpo rt e d me rc ha nd ise duri ngthe re le va

nt p e ri od . L e tte r f

ro m Me lvi n Sc hw e c hte r, L e B oe f, L amb, Gr e e ne & Ma c Ra e to Chen (Oc tober 20, 2006) at 4, C.R. at 255. However , J oy did not furnish L abor w ith the releva nt inf or matio n a nd did no t su bmi t any qu anti tativ e data , e ve n u po n r e qu e st. L e tte r f

ro m L e pid i to Chen (Oc tober 13, 2006) at 3, C.R. at 249. I nstead, L abor a rgues that statements by

company of fi c ia ls a re su ff ic ie nt t o c on sti tut e su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e . D e fe nd ant i s c or re c t th at th e c ourt s have f ound that L abor ma

y rely on so-ca lled “unver ified” state ments by company officia ls, but only when suc h statements do not contra dict other e vidence in the rec ord. He re, the re a re substantial inconsistencies and c ontradictions in the re cord. F or example, [J oy provided information conc erningits production prac tices]. I n response to its request for import data , L abor c hose to rely

on statements by

J oy to circumve nt the reque st, and disreg arde d evidenc e19

submitt ed by

Plaintiffs. Defe ndant ar g ues that on all occ asions wher e L abor pr ompted J oy for inf or matio n, “ Joy

re sp on de d w ithc og e nt a

ns we rs and

e xplanatio ns fr om k

no wl e dg e a

ble
so ur c e s. ” De fe nd ant’ s Re sp on se at 18 . H ow e ve r, on se ve ra l oc c a sio ns , Joy

did no t r e sp on d to L abor’ s questions at all. See, e.g ., L etter f rom L epidi to Chen (J anuar y 6, 2006) at 2, C.R. at 170; L etter f rom L epidi to Chen (Octobe r 13, 2006) at 4, C.R. at 250; L etter f rom L epidi to Chen (De cembe r 27, 2006), C.R. at 420; L etter f rom L epidi to Chen (J anuar y 5, 2007), C.R. at 426-27. For example, in response to L abor’ s query whether J oy had outsource d components abr oad, Joy simply stated that employ

ment had incr ease d at the F ranklin plant. L etter f rom L epidi to Chen (January 6, 2006) at 2, C.R. at 170; L etter f rom L epidi to Chen (Octobe r 13, 2006) at 4, C.R. at 250. Fur ther, De fenda

nt’s asser tion [ reg ardingits production prac tices], is an unsubstantiated statement made by

J oy , which is contra dictory to evidence in the rec ord. See, e .g ., Def endant’ s Response at 25-26. L abor did not obtain information from J oy reg ardingits foreig n suppliers and imports of continuous miner components, but base d its determination solely on statements made by J oy --with no re g ard f

or contra dictory

evidenc e in the re cord. The se shortfa lls in L abor’ s investigation do not support a finding that its determinations were based on substantial e vidence
. B Labor’s Negative Det erm ination is Not in Accor dance wi th Law Plaintiffs contend that L abor misapplied the T AA statute whe n it stated that “eve n if there
wer e incr ease d subject firm imports duringthe re levant per iod, the incre ased imports could not have ‘ contributed importantly to such total or par

tial separation, or threat ther eof, a nd to such decline in sa les or produc tion’ beca use sales f

or Joy incre ased dur ing the rele vant per iod.” Plaintiffs’ Motion at 21 (citing Re mand Results at 1,774, C.R. at 445). Plainti ffs a ssert that20

un de r T AAle g isl atio n, a

fi nd ingof

e ith e r a de c lin e in p ro du c tio n o r a de c lin e in s a le s is a sufficie nt basis upon which to cer tify worke rs for T AA elig ibilit y . Consequently , Plaintiffs argue that L abor’ s statement that import data wa s irrele vant is leg ally err oneous. I d. at 22. Plaintiffs also argue that L abor misstated the TA A elig ibilit y require ments by

concluding , on the basis of J oy ’s statement [reg ardingits production prac tices], that no shift in production could have
oc c ur re d. I d. at 22 -2 3. Pla int if

fs a lle g e that L a

bo r f a ile d to inq

uir e fu lly int o th e re latio ns hip be tw e e n Joy

and [an oth e r e nti ty ], and

fa ile d to inv e sti g ate Joy ’s state me nt [r e g ard ingits production pra ctices]. I d. at 22. L abor de nies that its conclusion was base d on [i nformation re g ardingJ oy ’s produc tion prac tices]. Defe ndant’s Response at 27. I nstead De fenda nt argues that L abor’ s determination was ba sed on its finding that “no shift of under g round mining ma chiner y production abr oad and no incre ased imports of unde rg round mining ma chiner y duringthe re levant per iod had occ urre d.” I d. (c iti ngRe mand

Re su lts at 1, 77 1, C.R . at 43 0) . [Joy pr ov ide d in fo rm atio n c on c e rn ingits pr od uc tio n p ra c tic e s]. I d. (c iti ngRe mand Re su lts at 1, 77 4, C.R . at 44 4) . D e fe nd ant a lso contends that the w orker

aff idavits corrobor ate [information conc erningJ oy ’s produc tion prac tices.] I d. at 28. The TAAstatute, requir es not only that worke rs wer e sepa

rate d, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1) , and that the se paration resulted from a n incre ase in imports, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)( 2)(A) (iii), but also that “the sa les or produc tion, or both, of such firm or subdivision have de cre ased
a bs olute ly .” 19 U. S.C. § 2 27 2( a )( 2) (A )( I ). L a bo r a sse rt s th at bo th s a le s a nd pr od uc tio n mu st have de c re a se d in

or de r f or the De pa rtme nt t o c e rt if

y the wo rk e rs and

c on c lud e s, on

that ba sis , that the FE O J oy

have not met the statutory require ments for TAAcer tification. L abor’ s21

conclusion is not in accor dance with law bec ause pr oduction decr ease d completely due to the plant closure a

nd the statute on its fac e re quires a de cline in either production or sa les or both. I d.; see a lso Remand Results at 1,774, C.R . at 443; For mer Employ ees of

Swiss I ndus. Abrasive s v. United States, 17 CI T 945, 948, 830 F. Supp. 637 (1993) (statingthat the plain languag e of the statute clea

rly allows for c ertifica

tion of a cla im if L abor de termines that produc tion has declined due to incre ased imports, with no corr espondingrequire ments that L abor f ind a dec line in sales). In its final determination, L abor state d that “Joy does not have an af

filiated produc tion fac ility in Mex ico . . . [t] here fore , there is no facility to which J oy

can shift pr oduction.” Remand R e s u l t s at1 , 7 7 4 , C
. R
. at4 4 6
. T i t l e 1 9 o f th e U n i t e d

S t at e s C o d e , s e c t i o n2 2 7 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( I) provides that wor

kers a re e ntitled to TAA cer

tification if “ther e has be en a shift in produc tion by
su c h w or ke rs ’ f ir m or su bd ivi sio n to a

fo re ig n c ountr

y of art ic le s li ke or

dir e c tly c omp e tit ive wi th article s which ar e produc ed by such firm or subdivision . . . .” The statute is silent reg arding
owner ship. Howeve r, L abor’ s regulations clear ly state that owne rship is not required f or production to shift. The De partment’s instruc tions for implementation of the TAA , states that “[s] ince the la

w does not addr ess owner ship of the produc ing f irm, the shift in production can be either by the firm or subdivision moving the pla nt to Mex ico or Cana da, or the U.S. firm contra ctingwith a diffe rent fir m located in Mexico or Canada .” Ope ratingInstructions for I mpl e me nti ngthe Am e ndme nts to t he Tr a de Ad

jus tme nt A ssi sta

nc e fo r Wo rk e rs Pr og ra

m in Title V of the Nor

th America

n Fr ee T rade Ag ree ment (NAF TA) Implementation Act, 59 F ed. Reg . 3,871, 3,873-74 (January 27, 1994) (e mphasis added) . Thus, even if J oy did not own Equimin, it s relationship with Equimin, or any fore ign supplier

with which J oy

contra cts, does not prec lude a f

inding by L abor that production had shifted. B eca use L abor misstated the TA A22

re qu ir e me nts , a s se t f

or th i n 1 9 U .S. C. § § 2 27 1( 2) (A )( ii) and 22 72 (a )( B )( I ), its de te rm inatio n is not supported by

substantial evidence
.

V

CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, this matter is re manded to the Sec reta ry of L abor f

or fur ther investigation consistent with the specific instructions conta ined her ein.

_/s/ Evan J . Wallach___ E v an J
. W al l ac h , J u d ge Dated: October

31, 2007 New Y ork, Ne w YorkUNI TED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATI ONAL

TRADE

____________________________________ : : FORMER EMPL OYEES OF : J OY TECHNO L OGI ES, I NC., :

: P l ai n t i ff s , : Be fo re : W ALLAC H, J u d ge

: Court No.: 06-00088 v . : : UNI TED S TAT ES S EC RE TAR Y OF : L AB OR , : : De fe nd ant. : : ____________________________________: ORDER AND JUDGMENT Upon consider ation of the De partment of L abor’ s (“L abor” ) Voluntary Remand Deter mination, filed pursuant to this court’s Orde r date d September 25, 2006; the c ourt having revie wed a ll comments contesting L abor’ s Remand Dete rmination and all plea dings a nd paper s on file her ein, havinghear d oral a rgument by

eac h party , and af

ter due deliberation, having rea ched a decision her ein; now, in confor mity with said decision, it is hereby ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that L abor’ s Remand Dete rmination in J oy Tec hnologie s, Inc.; DB A J oy Mining Mac hinery ; MT. Vernon Plant, MT. Ve rnon, I L ; Notice of Neg ative De termination on Remand, 72 F ed. Reg . 1,771 (January 16, 2007) is here by REMANDED; and it is furthe r ORDERED that L a

bo r s ha ll f

ur the r i nv e sti g ate thi s c a se c on sis te nt w iththe sp e c if ic instructions of this court and that L abor a nd Plaintiff shall coopera te on additional information g ather ing a

nd on verific ation of existi nginformation in the re cord; a nd it is further ORDERED that L abor sha ll, within s ix ty (60) da y s of the date of this Order , issue a rema nd deter mination; and it is further ORDERED that all par

ties shall reviewthe cour

t’s Opinion in this matter a nd notify the c ourt in wri tin gon

or be fo re Thur sd ay

No ve mbe r 8 , 2 00 7, wh e the r a ny inf or matio n c on ta ine d in the Opinion is confidential, identify any such information, and reque st its deletion from the public version of the Opinion to be issued there afte r. The pa rties shall sug g est alternativelangua g e fo r a ny po rt ion s th e y

wi shde le te d. I f a

pa rt y de te rm ine s th at no inf

or matio n n e e ds to be dele ted, that par

ty shall so notify

the cour t in writing on or be fore Thursday November

8, 2007.

__/s/ Evan J . Wallach_____ E v an J
. W al l ac h , J u d ge Dated: October

31, 2007 New Y ork, Ne w York