298 F.Supp.2d 1338 (CIT. 2003), 00-08-00409, Former Employees of Chevron Products Co. v. United States Secretary of Labor
| Citation | 298 F.Supp.2d 1338 |
| Party Name | FORMER EMPLOYEES OF CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant. SLIP OP. 03-171. |
| Case Date | December 30, 2003 |
| Court | Court of International Trade |
Page 1338
Meeks & Sheppard, New York City (Ralph H. Sheppard and Diane L. Weinberg), for Plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director, and Jeanne E. Davidson, Deputy Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Henry R. Felix); Louisa Reynolds, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Labor, for Defendant, of counsel.
Page 1339
OPINION
RIDGWAY, Judge.
Four long years ago, Plaintiffs ("the Workers") - then employed as "gaugers" 1 - lost their jobs with the Roosevelt Terminal unit of Chevron Products Company ("CPDS"), due to increased imports of oil. Although the Workers timely applied to the U.S. Department of Labor ("Labor Department") for certain benefits, those benefits were denied.
The Workers brought this action to contest the Labor Department's determinations denying their petition for transitional adjustment assistance benefits under the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") Implementation Act, and denying them benefits as "secondarily-affected workers" under the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the NAFTA Implementation Act. Complaint; 65 Fed.Reg. 30,442, 30,444 (May 11, 2000); 65 Fed.Reg. 46,988-89 (Aug. 1, 2000); AR 18-19, 32-38. 2 However, as discussed in greater detail below, the NAFTA-TAA petition that is the predicate for this action was spawned by the Workers' earlier petition under the general trade adjustment assistance provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 (the "TAA" statute). And that petition, in turn, implicates another petition filed earlier, under the same statute, by a related group of workers. This action thus involves three separate, intertwined Labor Department investigations.
Jurisdiction lies under 19 U.S.C. § 2395(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)(1) (1994). 3 Pending before the Court is the Labor Department's Notice of Revised Determination on Reopening (Corrected: September 25, 2003) ("Corrected Final Remand Determination"). See 68 Fed.Reg. 58,710 (Oct. 10, 2003). The Labor Department has now certified the Workers as eligible to apply for benefits - albeit almost four years after their initial application. Moreover, significantly, that certification is based not on any newly-discovered information but, instead, on the
Page 1340
Labor Department's belated identification of an error that it committed in February 2000 (when it denied the Workers' initial TAA petition).
Because it is a correction of the Labor Department's error in reviewing the Workers' TAA petition, the certification at bar is under the general TAA statute, rather than the NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance ("NAFTA-TAA") statute. 4 Specifically, the Labor Department has certified that:
All workers of Chevron Products Company, Roosevelt, Utah, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 4, 1999, through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
68 Fed.Reg. 58,710 (Oct. 10, 2003). 5 The Workers have advised that they are satisfied with that certification. See Letter to Court from Counsel for Plaintiffs (Sept. 26, 2003). Accordingly, with the observations and clarifications that follow, the Labor Department's Corrected Final Remand Determination in this matter is sustained.
I. Background
A. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Laws
Chevron I included a brief overview of the United States' trade adjustment assistance laws, which are generally designed to address jobs lost due to increased international trade. See generally Chevron I, 26 CIT at ----, 245 F.Supp.2d at 1317-18, and authorities cited there. Worker benefits available under the program established by the Trade Act of 1974 ("the TAA program") - including employment services, appropriate training, job search and relocation allowances, and income support payments - are denominated "trade adjustment assistance" ("TAA benefits"), while those available under the NAFTA Implementation Act, including the related Statement of Administrative Action ("the NAFTA-TAA program"), are referred to as "transitional adjustment assistance" ("NAFTA-TAA benefits"). Id. However, the two programs are very similar. For the sake of convenience, both are generally referred to herein as "trade adjustment assistance," except as otherwise specifically noted. 6
As Chevron I explained, the trade adjustment assistance laws are remedial legislation and, as such, are to be construed broadly to effectuate their intended purpose. Chevron I, 26 CIT at ----, 245 F.Supp.2d at 1318 (citations omitted). Further, both "because of the ex parte nature of the certification process, and the remedial purpose of [the statutes], the [Labor
Page 1341
Department] is obliged to conduct [its] investigation with the utmost regard for the interests of the petitioning workers." Stidham v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 11 CIT 548, 551, 669 F.Supp. 432, 435 ( citing Abbott v. Donovan, 7 CIT 323, 327-28, 588 F.Supp. 1438, 1442 (1984) (quotations omitted)).
Thus, while the Labor Department is vested with considerable discretion in the conduct of its investigation of trade adjustment assistance claims, "there exists a threshold requirement of reasonable inquiry." Former Employees of Hawkins Oil and Gas, Inc. v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor, 17 CIT 126, 130, 814 F.Supp. 1111, 1115 (1993). Courts have not hesitated to set aside agency determinations which are the product of perfunctory investigations. See generally Former Employees of Ameriphone, Inc. v. United States, 27 CIT ----, 288 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1355 (CIT 2003), and cases cited there.
B. The History of This Case
As Chevron II noted, this case quickly took on a life of its own. By the time that opinion issued, remanding the action to the Labor Department yet again, the agency already had been accorded no fewer than seven "bites at the apple." Chevron II, 27 CIT at ----, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1344-45.
As explained in Chevron II, the Labor Department's first two "bites" involved the agency's consideration of the Workers' initial petition for benefits under the TAA statute - the statute under which they have now been certified. 27 CIT at ----, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1345-46. As set forth in section I.B.3 below, the Workers filed their petition for NAFTA-TAA benefits -the petition directly at issue in this action - only after their TAA petition was denied. See generally Chevron II, 27 CIT at ----, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1346.
1. The TAA Petition
Following their termination by CPDS on October 31, 1999, the Workers promptly filed a TAA petition with the Labor Department. AR 4. Just a few weeks later, on November 24, 1999, the agency notified them that, in fact, they were already eligible for TAA benefits, under petition TA-W-36,295 filed previously by former employees of another Chevron entity - Chevron USA Production Company ("CPDN") - which had been granted in July 1999. See AR 4, 5; 64 Fed.Reg. 43,722, 43,724 (Aug. 11, 1999); see also 64 Fed.Reg. 61,940 (Nov. 15, 1999).
However, when officials at the Utah Department of Workforce Services began to make plans to proceed with training for the Workers, they discovered that the men's names did not appear on the list of those eligible for benefits. See AR 4. Upon further inquiry, CPDN representatives told the state officials that -as former employees of CPDS - the Workers here "should not be covered under the [pre-existing CPDN] certification." AR 5; see also Memo to U.S. Department of Labor Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance from State of Utah Department of Workforce Services, re: NAFTA-TAA Petition Preliminary State Investigation (April 6, 2000) (referring to "attached letter dated January 4, 2000, in which Ms. Alice Edman, TRA Coordinator explains that the Trade Act Petition for Chevron U.S.A. Production Company (CPDN), # TA-W 36,295 (I-Utah) does not cover the worker[s] from CPDS").
2. The Resubmitted TAA Petition
Utah state officials resubmitted the Workers' original TAA petition to the Labor Department in early January 2000, noting CPDN's claim that the Workers here were not covered by the pre-existing CPDN certification, and requesting that the Labor Department "confirm" the scope
Page 1342
of that certification. The state officials further requested that--if the Labor Department concluded that the Workers in fact were not covered by the pre-existing certification--the agency consider the Workers' TAA petition "either as a new petition or ... as an amendment to the ... [pre-existing] certification." See AR 5.
Despite the State's express request, the Labor Department failed to review the scope of the CPDN certification, to confirm whether or not the Workers were covered by it. See Tr. at 12-13. Instead, the agency proceeded to initiate a new TAA investigation, designated TA-W-37,240. As discussed in Chevron II, that investigation consisted largely of sending the three-page standard form TAA "Business Confidential Data Request" questionnaire to CPDS, the Workers' former employer. Based solely on CPDS's responses to the questionnaire, the Labor Department denied the Workers' TAA petition on the ground that their work did not constitute "production" under the statute. See Chevron II, 27 CIT at ----, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1345-46; 65 Fed.Reg. 14,626 (March 17, 2000); AR 16-17. 7
3. The NAFTA-TAA Petition
While assisting the Workers with their appeal of the Labor Department's denial of the TAA petition, the Utah state officials learned for the first time "that Chevron had been buying Canadian oil." AR 4. In light of the Canadian imports, a new petition was filed--this time seeking NAFTA-TAA benefits. AR 1-5.
However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial