![](source/plugin/floweregg/images/flower.gif) 鲜花( 0) ![](source/plugin/floweregg/images/egg.gif) 鸡蛋( 0)
|
道化工亚省工厂将裁员
6 E4 ~& k# I3 r( F( w/ pDow Chemical's Alberta facilities will see layoffs
- _8 n N$ E, A% R/ J1 c- l3 c* f# N, W! P
EDMONTON — Some employees at Dow Chemical’s Alberta facilities have been notified they will be laid off but the full extent of the job cuts won’t be known until late next week, a company spokesperson said Wednesday.
0 N4 v ?$ y/ H% ^0 o* y
6 @7 q0 v- X4 X5 P0 d3 sMary-Lea Crawford, public affairs manager for Dow at Fort Saskatchewan, would not say how many layoff notices have been handed out so far.
! T1 o! A5 u% r L: D* F& l) b; m4 c3 R' M
The cuts are not expected to be as deep as the 11-per-cent target announced by the U.S.-based company in December, she said.
0 Y! D0 x( E$ c. w; m
4 i S, `& {. rDow employs about 630 people in Alberta, with 550 in Fort Saskatchewan with the balance at its Prentiss facility near Red Deer.. I+ {' M5 j E* S: G3 ^
& D# j( w% Z) z9 V0 k$ A* s v! jDow posted weaker-than-expected fourth-quarter results on Tuesday because demand has plummeted in markets such as the construction, electronics and automotives.7 Y# U+ g' r @% u" B
3 b. y4 T0 |% EDow has tried to revamp its earnings profile over the past two years, first by announcing plans to sell a 50- per-cent stake in its cyclical basic plastics business to Kuwaiti investors for more than $9 billion. Then, in July, it announced plans to spend more than $15 billion to acquire Rohm and Haas using proceeds from the joint venture.
4 a4 z/ j: t1 G8 V6 o1 L7 \2 b
2 ~4 w2 |; i4 _, L) EDow’s plans faltered when Kuwait backed out of the joint venture. Rohm and Haas said its merger agreement with Dow, was not contingent on the Kuwait transaction.
) _- B- }- Z$ D8 U# m4 r9 D6 h! B0 ~& G4 Z$ k* d0 C
Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas sued Dow in a bid to force the deal to close. Dow filed its response to the lawsuit on Tuesday.
: t1 M7 K- K* M+ I* C3 C" N q' R0 G# B+ T5 ~. _: c
Dow argued the agreement was not binding, because it was impossible to carry out “without jeopardizing the very existence of both companies.” |
|