Oshkosh Defense, a Division of Oshkosh Corporation, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark Staffing Resources, Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta Resources, Inc., Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff Parts and Repair, Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc., Teksystems, and Labor Ready, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration |
|---|
Topics: Oshkosh
|
Del Min Amy Chen
Employment and Training Administration
August 13, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49290-49291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19544]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-82,286]
Oshkosh Defense, a Division of Oshkosh Corporation, Including On-
Site Leased Workers From Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing,
Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark
Staffing Resources, Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta
Resources, Inc., Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff
Parts and Repair, Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc.,
Teksystems, and Labor Ready, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On April 29, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh
Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin (hereafter referred to as ``Oshkosh
Defense'' or ``the subject firm''). Workers at the subject firm were
engaged in activities related to the production of, and administrative
functions in support of, military, logistical, and tactical vehicles,
and diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e.,
H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series
Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles), including component
parts. The workers are not separately identifiable by article produced.
The subject worker group includes workers at various facilities in
Oshkosh, Wisconsin who are engaged in production of, and administrative
functions in support of, the articles produced by the subject firm.
The subject worker group also includes on-site leased workers from
Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp
International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark Staffing Resources,
Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta Resources, Inc.,
Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff Parts and Repair,
Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc., Teksystems, and Labor
Ready.
The petitioner alleges that workers were impacted by increased
imports of component parts like or directly competitive with those
produced at the Oshkosh, Wisconsin facility.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the Department's findings that the subject firm did not import
like or directly competitive articles, and did not import finished
articles using like or directly competitive foreign-produced component
parts.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Oshkosh Defense did not shift the production of military,
logistical, and tactical vehicles, or like or directly competitive
articles, to a foreign country or acquire the production of such
articles from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Oshkosh Defense is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification
of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of
the Act, have not been satisfied because the workers' firm has not been
publically identified by name by the International Trade Commission as
a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an
affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material
injury, or threat thereof.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the
Department has issued a determination for a worker group other than the
one identified by the United Auto Workers, Local 578 (UAW-578) in its
petition. Specifically, UAW-578 asserts that the subject firm is
Oshkosh Corporation and that it has a collective bargaining agreement
with Oshkosh Corporation. UAW-578 also alleges that the Department has
misunderstood the articles produced at the subject facility.
Specifically, UAW-578 asserts that the subject facility produces
articles for both military and commercial use. UAW-578 further alleges
that an article or a component part for military use is like or
directly competitive with the same one for commercial use.
During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm company
official confirmed that, in addition to the production of, and
administrative functions in support of military, logistical, and
tactical vehicles, the workers of the subject firm also produced
diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-
Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series
Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles).
The reconsideration investigation also revealed that ``Oshkosh
Defense'' is the only division within Winnebago county
[[Page 49291]]
that UAW-578 represents and that ``Oshkosh Defense'' is the only entity
related to Oshkosh Corporation that employs members of UAW-578.
Further, the reconsideration investigation revealed that the ``access
equipment'' and ``fire and emergency'' unit have not in the past or
present been located in the Oshkosh, Wisconsin area, and that these
articles are produced in other parts of the country.
The reconsideration investigation further revealed that the subject
firm has not imported any articles or services like or directly
competitive with the production of, and administrative functions in
support of military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, and diverse
products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-
Blower, H-Tractor, P-series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front
Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) produced or performed by the
workers of the subject firm.
The reconsideration investigation also revealed that the subject
firm does not import any finished products that incorporate an article
or services like or directly competitive with the articles produced or
services supplied by the subject firm. Because almost all of the
products manufactured by Oshkosh Defense are supplied to the United
States military, no customer survey of imports was conducted.
In addition, the reconsideration investigation revealed that the
subject firm did not shift production or services like or directly
competitive with the administrative services and military, logistical,
and tactical vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and
commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow
Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles)
produced or supplied by the workers of the subject firm, and did not
acquire articles or services like or directly competitive with the
administrative services and military, logistical, and tactical
vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and commercial
group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal
Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) from a
foreign country.
During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm
addressed a newspaper article submitted by the petitioner which stated,
in part, that Oshkosh Corporation was ``bringing work back to the
factory that was outsourced--a move that saved 165 production jobs.''
Specifically, the subject firm confirmed that when production needs
extended capacity, the work was ``outsourced'' to local (domestic)
vendors.
The Department notes that the fore-mentioned article started with
the statement ``Faced with deep cuts in U.S. military spending, and the
end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Oshkosh Corp. is laying off
900 employees in its defense division'' and stated that the
``Department of Defense is reining in spending.'' The article also
states that the subject firm has facilities in other states that are
able to produce similar or directly competitive articles.
During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm also
addressed the petitioner's allegation that Oshkosh Corporation imports
specific parts (i.e., ``exhibit f''). The subject firm confirmed that
the parts at issue have never been manufactured by an Oshkosh Defense
facility and have always been procured from a foreign country. The
subject firm also confirmed that the imported parts are in articles
that constitute a negligible percentage of Oshkosh Corporation
production.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the reconsideration
investigation confirmed that Oshkosh Defense is not a Supplier or
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is applicable)
that employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of Section
222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
affirm the denial of the petition for group eligibility of Oshkosh
Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC on this 26th day of July, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-19544 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P