Federal judge hears evidence on blocking Pyrex plant closure in Charleroi

A federal judge will decide by the end of Thursday whether to block the closure of a Pyrex-making glassware plant in Charleroi that is a major employer in the Mon Valley.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General is seeking a preliminary injunction to prohibit Centre Lane Partners, a private equity firm working with owner Anchor Hocking Holdings Inc., from closing the 132-year-old plant to move its operations to Lancaster, Ohio — a move that would eliminate 270 jobs.

U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on Oct. 31 granted a temporary restraining order sought by the AG’s office.

The order prohibits New York City-based Centre Lane Partners from making material changes to the plant, including removing equipment and assets.

Now, the state attorney general is seeking an injunction to give it additional time to review the merger of the companies to assess whether it violates antitrust laws.

But attorneys for Centre Lane said no injunction is necessary and that work to move operations should be allowed to continue.

“This is an extraordinary remedy,” John Majoras said. “The parties here don’t need permission to merge or consolidate their operations.”

Prior to the merger, Pyrex controlled 64% of the glass bakeware market in the United States, while Anchor Hocking controlled 27%, said Tracy Wertz, a lawyer arguing on behalf of the state.

Centre Lane already had Anchor Hocking and obtained the Pyrex business unit of Corelle Brands in March.

Anchor Hocking announced plans to close the production plant and notified the state Department of Labor and Industry it would begin phased layoffs Dec. 9, with the plant shutdown finalized by early February.

But the attorney general’s office argued the plant would be irreparably harmed if the company hauled away the equipment.

Wertz told the court that when the attorney general’s office learned about the merger — after it had been completed — it asked the companies to pause the shutdown to allow for a review.

Instead of agreeing, Wertz said, the companies escalated the work, making it more difficult to undo.

“A preliminary injunction is necessary to maintain the status quo until the court can conduct a full hearing on this transaction,” Wertz said.

The state wants to halt the dismantling of equipment, restore operations and void layoff notices.

“It’s anti-competitive harm that’s happening right now,” Wertz said.

The attorney general’s office called one employee to testify at the hearing, a man who worked on an assembly line to make bakeware at the Charleroi plant.

He was not identified in court to protect him from possible retaliation.

The man, who works on computer and electrical equipment, said he was on site the day dismantling began on the line.

On the first day, he testified that time was taken in the process to mark parts to make reassembly easier.

By the third day, he said, it appeared to have switched from “dismantling to demolition.” No longer were parts being marked, and the process was moving faster.

“Each day I’d come in and watch what was going on, I got a personal feeling this was not about putting this back together.”

Attorneys for Centre Lane told the court that the Lancaster, Ohio, plant is newer and has more production capacity, eliminating the need for the Charleroi location. It can produce all of the Anchor Hocking products, as well as Pyrex.

“It makes no sense to operate two factories when it can be done in one,” attorney Aaron Healey said.

Further, he argued that consolidation will result in greater production efficiency and lower costs.

He also argued that no one objected to the merger when it occurred in March, and the state stepped in only after the plant closure was announced — even though, Healey said, every employee at Charleroi was offered a position at Lancaster.

“This is about job relocation and not about job loss,” he said.

The parties spent a great deal of time during the hearing discussing the relevant market for an antitrust analysis. The state identified the market as only glass bakeware, while Centre Lane said the market ought to be more broadly defined to include ceramic, metal, stoneware and cast iron.

“We believe this merger is not anti-competitive,” Majoras said.