Slip Op. 09 - 43



## UNI TED STATES COU

RT OF INTERNATIO

NAL TRADE

: FORMER EMPL OYEES OF : HO NE YWE L LI

NT ERN AT I ON AL , I

NC

. : : Pla int if fs , : Before: M USGRA VE, Senior Jud ge : v . : Court No. 08-00315 : UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF : L AB OR : : De fe nd ant. : : OP IN ION [S ecr etar y of L abor’ s neg ative elig ibilit y deter mination for trade adjustment assistance sustaine d.] Dated: Ma

y 14, 2009 Go lds te in G rage l LLC

( J oy c e Go lds te in and Gi na Frate rn ali ), fo r t he pla int if

fs

. M i c h a e l F . H e rtz , A c tin g As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; JeanneE. Davidson , Di re ctor, Pa tri c ia M.. McCa rthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice (

Antonia R. Soares ); Off

ice of the Solicitor, U. S

. De p artment of L abor, of c ouns e l ( Jonathan Hamme r ), fo r t he de fe nd ant.
MUSGRAVE, Senior J udg e: Plaintiffs are sever al hundred former employ ees of the Aer ospace Division of Honey well I nternational, I nc. (“ Honey well A erospa ce” ). Invoking jurisdiction here pur suant to 19 U.S.C. § 2395 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)( 1), they challeng e the denial of their Petition for Tra de Adjustment Assistance ( “TAA ”) a nd Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance ( “ATA A”) by

the direc tor of the Division of Tra de Adjustment Assistance, Employ ment and Tra ining Administration, U.S. Dep artment of L abor ( “L abor” ). See H oneywe ll Aerospace,Court No. 08-00315 Pag e 2

Worker elig ibilit y for TAA benef its is g overne d by section 222 of t he Trade Act of 1974, 1 as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 2272. I n g ener al, t o be eligible for TAA benefits the S ecr etar y must find a “sig nificant number” of lay offs from the workers’ firm or “appropriate s ubdivision” and either an absolute dec rea se in sales or pr oduction (or both) due to imports of articles that “contributed imp or tantl y ” to t

he lay offs o r d e c lin e in s a le s o r p ro du c tio n a nd that are dir e c tly

c omp e tit ive wi th the art ic le s p ro du c e d b y

the wo rk e rs ’ f

ir m, o r a sh if t in pr od uct ion

fr om t he wo rk e rs ’ f

ir m to countr ie s o u ts id e th e U n it e d St a te s ( an d , in th e c a s e o f c o u n tr ie s n o t c o v e r e d b y a fre e tra de ag ree ment or ce rtain other A cts, there has bee n or is likely to be an incre ase in im ports of ar ticles that are like or direc tly

competitive with article s which ar e or w er e produc ed by the worke rs’ fir

m or subdivision). 19 U.S.C . § 2272(a)

. I n addition to TAA, older worke rs for whom retra ining may not be appr opriate ma

y be elig ible for AT AA, a separ ate prog ram subsidizi ng the wag es of those w ho quickly obtain re- employ ment at a lower wag e than what they previously

ear ned. See 19 U.S.C. § 23 18 ; se e als o U.S. Go v . Ac countability Offic e, TAA: Most W

orkers in FiveLayoffs Receiv ed S e r v i c es , B u t

B e t t e r O u tr e a c h N

e e d e d o n N e w B e ne fit s , GAO -06- 43 , Jan . 2 00 6, a t 9. AT AAis conditional upon cer

tification for TA A, and i n

d e te r mi n in g wh e th e r to g rant g roup ce rtification under the ATAA , L abor c onsiders three criter ia: (1) whe ther a sign i fi ca n t n umber of w orker s in the wo rk ers ’ fi rm are 50 y e ars of a g e or old e r, (2 ) w he the r t

he wo rk e rs in t

he wo rk e rs ’ f

ir m po sse ss s k i l l s t h a tar e n o t e a s i l y t r an s f e r a b l e , an d ( 3 ) t h e c o mp e t i t i v e c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i nt h e w o r k e r s ’ i n d u s t r y. 19 U.S.C. § 2318(a)(3) (A)( ii). Defense & Space D ivision Teterboro NJ: Notice of Negative De termination on Reconsideration , 73 F e d. Re g . 4 23 72 (Jul y

21 , 2 00 8) ; see also 19 U.S.C. §§ 2272(a), 2273, 2318. 1 A d e c isi on

by L a bo r t o d e ny

c e rt if ic a tio n o f e lig ibi lity

fo r t ra de a ssi sta

nc e be ne fi ts must be s u s ta in e d if it is in a c c o r d an c e w it h la w an d s u p p o rte d b y s u

b s ta n ti a l e v id e nce in the administrative re cord. See 19 U.S.C. § 2395(b). See , e.g. , Former Employ ees of Kleinerts, Inc . v. Herman , 2 3 C I T 6 4 7 , 6 5 0 , 7 4 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 4 (1 9 9 9 ). T h i s co u rt h as ex am i n edt h e p l ea d i n gs and administrative rec ord and conclude s that the plaintiffs conte ntion essentially resolves to whe ther L a bo r’ s c on fi rm a tio n, wi th t he c on ta c t pe rs on fo r Ho ne y we ll Ae ro sp a c e , a

nd wi th t he loc a l D e fe ns e C o n t r a c t M an a g e m e n t A g e n c y T e a m L e a d e r , t h a t H o n e yw e l l ’ s p r o d u c t i o n a t t h e T e t e r

b o r o f a c i l i t y, wher e the e mploy ees ha d been e mploy ed, is subject to the International Traf fic in Arms Regulations (“ I T AR”), 22 C.F .R. §§ 120.1-130.17 (which r equire , pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2778, i n t e r a lia ,Court No. 08-00315 Pag e 3

domestic production and nonimportation in the absence of a lice nse of defense article s on the United State s Mu

nit ion s L ist , 2 2 U .S. C. § 27 78 (a )( 1) ; see CR at 27, 29, & PR at 4 9 -5 2 ) as we ll as Honey well Aer ospace ’s statements re g ardingits reasons for closure of

the Tete rboro f

acili t y and

tr ans fe r o f i ts prod

uc tio n to oth e r d ome sti c fa c ili tie s a nd no t ov e rs e a s, c on sti tut e a de qu a te investigation and amount to substantial evidenc e on the r ecor d to support finding that production at Tete rboro wa s not shifted abroa d or that the plaintiffs’ wor k was not impacte d by

imports. The
court c oncludes that it does, and that substantia l ev i d en ce o f record suppor ts those findings. See , e.g. , CR at 14, 18, 21-22, 27, 29, 35, 37, 55, 78-79. Se e als o H e wle tt-Pa c k

ar d Co. v . U nit e d S tat es, 17 CI T 980, 986 (1993) ( “[r]elevant ca se law ha s consistently held t h at the TAA statute doe s not apply when a company closes bec ause e conomic fa ctors make continued operations im prac tical rathe r than due to direct import c o m p et i t ion”). F urther, imports of like pr oduct ar e prosc ribed by I TA R re g u l a t i o nan d

l aw , an d t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i nt h e r e c o r d f r o m w h i c h t o i n f

e r i mp o rt s in
contravention there of.

Th e br e vit

y of thi s o pin ion

do e s n ot r e fl e c t th e c omm e nd a ble br ie fi ngof

the pa rt ie s, bu t in li g h t o f th e f

o r e g o in g , th e c o u rt mu s t c o n s id e r th e p la in ti f f s ’ o th e r c o n te n ti ons as without

me rit. See Che n v. Chao , 32 CI T ___, ___, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1296 (2008) (re cog nizi ng that inve s ti g a ti o n in to o th e r cr iteria of se ction 2272(a) (2)( A) unne cessa ry if ade quate investig ation shows

one cr iterion lacking ). B eca use the re cord su p p o rts L abor’ s finding that an essential c riterion for TAA e ligibility

is lacking , L abor’ s neg ative dete rmination must be sustained.

Dated: Ma

y 14, 2009 /s/ R. Kenton Musgra ve Ne w Y o rk , Ne w Y o rk R

. KE NT ON M US GR AV E , S en i o r J u d ge