Slip Op. 05–147

United States Court of International Trade

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FORMER EMPLOYEES OF MURRAY :

ENGINEERING, INC.,
: BEFORE: Pogue, Judge

Plaintiffs,

: Court No. 03-00219

v.

:

ELAINE L. CHAO, UNITED STATES

SECRETARY OF LABOR, :

Defendant. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

On July 14, 2005, Mr. Ken Walter, on behalf of the Former

Employees of Mu rray Engineering, Inc. (“Former Employees”),

filed a motio n for rehearing asserting that the court had not
provided the parties a full opportunity to address the question

of whether the Former Employees were “affec t ed secondary

workers” within meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b) (West Supp.

2005). The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and after

consideration of all the arguments and papers filed in relation

thereto, the court affi rms its previous decision to sustain

Labor’s Determination because even if this court were to agree

with Plaintif fs’ ably stated arguments, the Plaintiffs are

without relief.

Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits are limited to those

workers “whose last or parti al separation from the firm . . .

occurred

. . . [no] more than one year before the date of the
petition on which such certification was granted.” 19 U.S.C. §

2273(b)(1). In this case, the date of the petition was January

15, 2003. However, as asserted in the Former Employee’s

arguments for rehearing, the Former Employees had been

t erminated more than one year prior to the filing of their
petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance. Therefore, pursuant

to 19 U.S.C. § 2273(b), they are ineligible for be nefits. As

such, the Former Employees cannot claim that Commerce’s method

for assessing whether import competition significantly

contributed to their layoffs, i.e., looking to a two year interval prior to the date of the petition, was improper here.1 The booklet upon which Plaintiffs rely explains:

Under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, you may

apply fo r Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) if

increased imports have adversely affected your job. The assistance may include Trade
Readjustment Allowances (TRA), which provide a weekly income onc e you exhaust your regular
employment benefits if you are still unemployed.

Plaintiff’s Br. at Attach 2. P laintiffs argue that they were misled by a sta tement appearing in a State of Michigan unemployment benefits booklet 1

into thinking that they could apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance only after having exhausted their other unemployment

benefits. Unfortunately, the law does not provide a remedy for

Plaintiffs’ reliance on this publication. Although it is

regrettable that the Former Employees were led astray, given

that 19 U.S.C. § 2273(b) clearly commands that benefits be

limited to only those workers who have been totally or partially

separated from their employment within a year of petitioning for

benefits, therefore, the Judiciary may grant no relief. S ee,

e.g.

, Office of Pers. Mgmt v. Richmond , 496 U.S. 414, 424

(1990).

The court appreciates the arguments of the Former Employees,
especially Mr. Ken Walter, who have argued their case through

several remands. But in this case, although there may have been

a wrong, there is no remedy, and the Court must affirm Labor’s

Determination.

/s/ Donald C. Pogue

Donald C. Pogue

Judge

Dated: November 9, 2005

New York, New York