[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28302-28303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12107]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,606]


American Food and Vending Spring Hill, TN; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 6, 2010, the International Union, United 
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implements Workers of America, 
Local 1853 (Union) 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 determination was signed on March 19, 
2010. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the 
Federal Register on April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21358).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The negative determination applicable to workers and former workers 
at American Food and Vending, Spring Hill, Tennessee, was based on the 
findings that the subject firm did not, during the investigation 
period, shift to a foreign country services like or directly 
competitive with the cafeteria services or vending machine services 
supplied by the workers or acquire from a foreign country services like 
or directly competitive with the cafeteria services or vending machine 
services supplied by the workers; that the workers' separation, or 
threat of separation, was not related to any increase in imports of 
like or directly competitive services or a shift in service/acquisition 
abroad; and that the workers did not supply a service that was directly 
used in the production of an article or the supply of service by a firm 
that employed a worker group that is eligible to apply for TAA based on 
the afore-mentioned article or service.
    In the request for reconsideration, the Union stated that the 
workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because they are 
service workers who provided services to General Motors, Spring Hill, 
Tennessee, and were laid off at the same time as workers of Premier 
Manufacturing Support Services (a services provider to General Motors, 
Spring Hill, Tennessee, who were certified eligible to apply for TAA on 
March 12, 2010, under TA-W-72,379).
    The difference in the determinations is based on the difference in 
the companies' relationships to the

[[Page 28303]]

production process at General Motors, Spring Hill, Tennessee. The 
workers of Premier Manufacturing Support Services provided services 
(janitorial, maintenance, and hazardous waste disposal) that were 
directly involved in the production process at General Motors, Spring 
Hill, Tennessee. In contrast, the worker of the subject firm provided 
services (cafeteria services and vending machine services) that are not 
directly involved in the production process at General Motors, Spring 
Hill, Tennessee.
    In the request for reconsideration, the Union also asserts that the 
workers ``are under the operational control of the General Motors 
Corporation in Spring Hill, Tennessee and were considered joint 
employees.''
    A careful review of previously-submitted information from American 
Food and Vending revealed no evidence that supports either of the 
afore-mentioned assertions. For example, the workers' wages have not 
been reported under any Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) 
other than the subject firm's FEIN.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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 3rd day of May 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-12107 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P