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 Murray Engineering, Inc. (“Former Employees”),

filed a motion for rehearing asserting that the court had not

provided the parties a full opportunity to address the question

of whether the Former Employees were “affected 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 affirms its previous decision to sustain

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

with Plaintiffs’ ably stated arguments, the Plaintiffs are

without relief. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits are limited to those

workers “whose last or partial 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

terminated 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 benefits. 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.
1The booklet upon which Plaintiffs rely explains:

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

apply for 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 once you exhaust your regular

employment benefits if you are still unemployed.

Plaintiff’s Br. at Attach 2.

Plaintiffs argue that they were misled by a statement

appearing in a State of Michigan unemployment benefits booklet1

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. See,

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