LOCAL 116 v. US Secretary of Labor, Court No. 90-08-00437.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1992
• Docket Number: Court No. 90-08-00437.
• Citation: 793 F. Supp. 1094,16 CIT 490
• Parties: LOCAL 116, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRONIC, ELECTRICAL, SALARIED, MACHINE AND FURNITURE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

793 F. Supp. 1094

16 CIT 490

LOCAL 116, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRONIC, ELECTRICAL, SALARIED, MACHINE AND FURNITURE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant.

Court No. 90-08-00437.

United States Court of International Trade.

June 25, 1992.

Brodie Rubinsky & Ford, Joshua P. Rubinsky, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Jeffrey M. Telep, Washington, D.C. (Yvonne Senning, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Dept. of Labor, of counsel), for defendant.

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Judge:

Plaintiff filed this action appealing a negative determination of the Secretary of Labor ("Labor") denying certification for trade adjustment assistance benefits. Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance ("Negative Determination"), 55 Fed.Reg. 21,955 (1990).

Plaintiff maintains that there is insufficient evidence on the administrative record to sustain the United States Department of Labor's decision to deny its petition for certification of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance as provided in 19 U.S.C. § 2271 (1988). Labor disagrees and contends that its determination should be affirmed. The court's jurisdiction is properly grounded on 19 U.S.C. § 2395 (1988) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)(1) (1988).

Background

In response to a petition filed by the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, Local 116 ("Local 116"), on behalf of the workers at Honeywell Inc. ("Honeywell"), Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, an investigation was allegedly initiated by Labor to determine whether workers at Honeywell were entitled to trade adjustment assistance. The investigative report written by Louise Brown, Petition Investigator, revealed that Labor's investigation consisted primarily of a short questionnaire completed by Honeywell and letters and telephone conversations between Ms. Brown and Edward Szkaradnik, Director of Manufacturing at Honeywell.

Honeywell operates plants in York, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, Arizona; Golden Valley, Minnesota; and Amiens, France. The products manufactured at these various Honeywell plants supplement the Fort Washington product line. Ms. Brown also found these plants are not considered by the Company to be competitive with the products produced at the Fort Washington plant. Specifically, the products made at the subject plant consist of controllers, programmers, recorders, motors, pyrometers, multiplexers, transmitters and valves. According to company officials, production at the subject plant since about June 1987 primarily consists of assembly work. Honeywell purchases printed circuit boards, both domestic and foreign made, to be assembled into instruments and control systems.

Before 1987, the Fort Washington plant manufactured a printed circuit board using the "trough hole" method. The purchased printed circuit boards are produced with a new type of technology that was never utilized at the Fort Washington plant. The method of production utilizes a surface mount technique in which the components, which are smaller than those used in the trough hole technique, are glued onto the board. Different types of equipment and robotics have made this method less labor intensive. A large proportion of these printed circuit boards are imported.

According to a company official, printed products which are imported by Honeywell are not competitive with products made at the Fort Washington plant. The imported products are complementary to a domestically produced product line. The Fort Washington plant, for example, produces UDC digital controller series 2000/3000. The imported 6000/1000 series is considered complementary and is used for different applications. Additionally, the component parts and subassemblies of the printed circuit boards that are purchased globally and domestically cannot be manufactured at the Fort Washington plant because of design or process requirements according to a company official.

The subject plant reported increasing sales and production in 1989 compared to 1988 and in the January-March period of 1990 compared to the same period in 1989. A company official stated that the decline in the employment of production workers can be associated to product design change, moving from analog to digital technology, a new manufacturing technology that is less labor intensive. Over the last several years, chips which are digital components have been replacing the analog technology.

Labor layoffs in 1989 consisted of salaried workers. These layoffs according to company officials were related to reorganization of administrative functions with a division headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona.

On May 18, 1990, Labor determined that the workers formerly employed at the Honeywell Fort Washington plant were not eligible to receive worker adjustment assistance benefits on the basis that sales production did not decline. Negative Determination, 55 Fed.Reg. at 21,955. On June 29, 1990, Labor declined to reconsider its earlier negative determination. Honeywell Inc., Fort Washington, PA; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 55 Fed.Reg. 28,697 (1990).

Discussion

In order for the Department of Labor to certify a group of workers for adjustment assistance, 19 U.S.C. § 2272 (1988) states that:

(a) The Secretary shall certify a group of workers ... as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under this part if he determines —

(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated,

(2) that sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and

(3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production.

If Labor denies a request for certification, this Court may order a remand if good cause is shown or if the agency's investigation "is so marred that the Secretary's finding is arbitrary or of such a nature that it could not be based on substantial evidence." See United Glass & Ceramic Workers v. Marshall, 584 F.2d 398, 405 (D.C.Cir.1978); see also Former Employees of Linden Apparel Corp. v. United States, 13 CIT 467, 469, 715 F.Supp. 378, 381 (1989). Substantial evidence has been defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938).

In accordance with this standard of review, this Court cannot in good conscience affirm a determination on the basis of the administrative record in the case at hand. The administrative record developed during the investigation, notably very scant, strongly indicates that Labor's investigative endeavors were at best lacking. This Court has previously remanded investigations to the Department of Labor when the investigations were similarly inept. See Former Employees of Hawkins Oil & Gas, Inc. v....