Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 10/21/2002
Most Recent Update: 12/04/2002
Determination Date: 12/04/2002
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-42,256
JACKSON SEWING CENTER
MADISONVILLE, TENNESSEE
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On February 19, 2003, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice will
soon be published in the Federal Register.
The Department initially denied the workers of Jackson
Sewing Center, Madisonville, Tennessee because the "contributed
importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. Imports of sewn
furniture parts did not contribute importantly to the layoffs at
the subject plant. The workers at the subject firm were engaged
in employment related to the manufacture (sewing) of upholstered
furniture parts. The sewn articles were sent to other affiliated
plants to be incorporated into upholstered furniture.
The petitioner asserts that company sales were down and thus
the company was attempting to cut costs by importing Chinese
products (cut-sewn fabric for furniture) competitive with those
produced by the subject plant. The petitioner further alleges
that, during September 2002, some “parts” from China were seen at
an affiliated plant. The petitioner also supplied style numbers
believed to be imported from China.
On reconsideration, the Department contacted the company for
further clarification concerning company imports of cut-sewn
fabric for upholstered furniture. In response to the style
numbers supplied by the petitioner, the company indicated that,
with the exception of one style number, they did not import these
products. The one style number imported (7866) constituted a
negligible amount in relation to production at the subject firm
and the company further indicated this was a one time event
during 2002, and in fact was not even produced at the subject
firm, but rather at an affiliated facility. (However, the
subject plant had the capability to produce that style.)
The company also reported that they imported cut-sewn
leather furniture parts and tables but that they did not produce
cut-sewn leather furniture parts and tables. In any event, the
amount of imported cut-sewn leather furniture parts was extremely
small in relation to production at the Madisonville plant during
January through September 2002. In fact, the imported pre-cut
and sewn leather covers were purchased from manufacturers that
specialize in producing these products. The company indicated
that the investment in equipment and training would far exceed
any profitability they could expect in such a program.
The company also indicated that they imported tables during
the relevant period. However, since the worker group does not
produce this product, imported tables are not “like or directly”
competitive with what the subject plant produced (cut-sewn fabric
for furniture parts) and thus does not meet the eligibility
requirements of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
The plant ships all cut-sewn fabric parts for furniture
produced at the subject plant to other affiliated plants that
incorporate the sewn parts into furniture; therefore, a customer
survey is not relevant to this investigation.
In summary, the sum of cut-sewn fabric and one style of cut-
sewn leather furniture parts imported was extremely small amount
relative to what the subject plant produced during the relevant
period, and therefore did not contribute importantly to layoffs
at the subject plant.
The company also indicated that from 2001 to 2002 the styles
of furniture have changed and thus require a smaller number of
cut sewn furniture parts to produce a piece of furniture.
The company further indicated that the Madisonville plant
was an extension for the sewing operation of an affiliated
domestic facility. The subject plant was opened several years
ago when additional sewing capacity was needed at the affiliated
plant, since the labor market was extremely tight. Since less
sewing is now required the company decided to shift the sewing
operation back to the affiliated plant.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Jackson
Sewing Center, Madisonville, Tennessee.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 21st day of March 2003,
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-42,256
JACKSON SEWING CENTER
MADISONVILLE, TENNESSEE
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On February 19, 2003, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice will
soon be published in the Federal Register.
The Department initially denied the workers of Jackson
Sewing Center, Madisonville, Tennessee because the "contributed
importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. Imports of sewn
furniture parts did not contribute importantly to the layoffs at
the subject plant. The workers at the subject firm were engaged
in employment related to the manufacture (sewing) of upholstered
furniture parts. The sewn articles were sent to other affiliated
plants to be incorporated into upholstered furniture.
The petitioner asserts that company sales were down and thus
the company was attempting to cut costs by importing Chinese
products (cut-sewn fabric for furniture) competitive with those
produced by the subject plant. The petitioner further alleges
that, during September 2002, some “parts” from China were seen at
an affiliated plant. The petitioner also supplied style numbers
believed to be imported from China.
On reconsideration, the Department contacted the company for
further clarification concerning company imports of cut-sewn
fabric for upholstered furniture. In response to the style
numbers supplied by the petitioner, the company indicated that,
with the exception of one style number, they did not import these
products. The one style number imported (7866) constituted a
negligible amount in relation to production at the subject firm
and the company further indicated this was a one time event
during 2002, and in fact was not even produced at the subject
firm, but rather at an affiliated facility. (However, the
subject plant had the capability to produce that style.)
The company also reported that they imported cut-sewn
leather furniture parts and tables but that they did not produce
cut-sewn leather furniture parts and tables. In any event, the
amount of imported cut-sewn leather furniture parts was extremely
small in relation to production at the Madisonville plant during
January through September 2002. In fact, the imported pre-cut
and sewn leather covers were purchased from manufacturers that
specialize in producing these products. The company indicated
that the investment in equipment and training would far exceed
any profitability they could expect in such a program.
The company also indicated that they imported tables during
the relevant period. However, since the worker group does not
produce this product, imported tables are not “like or directly”
competitive with what the subject plant produced (cut-sewn fabric
for furniture parts) and thus does not meet the eligibility
requirements of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
The plant ships all cut-sewn fabric parts for furniture
produced at the subject plant to other affiliated plants that
incorporate the sewn parts into furniture; therefore, a customer
survey is not relevant to this investigation.
In summary, the sum of cut-sewn fabric and one style of cut-
sewn leather furniture parts imported was extremely small amount
relative to what the subject plant produced during the relevant
period, and therefore did not contribute importantly to layoffs
at the subject plant.
The company also indicated that from 2001 to 2002 the styles
of furniture have changed and thus require a smaller number of
cut sewn furniture parts to produce a piece of furniture.
The company further indicated that the Madisonville plant
was an extension for the sewing operation of an affiliated
domestic facility. The subject plant was opened several years
ago when additional sewing capacity was needed at the affiliated
plant, since the labor market was extremely tight. Since less
sewing is now required the company decided to shift the sewing
operation back to the affiliated plant.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Jackson
Sewing Center, Madisonville, Tennessee.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 21st day of March 2003,
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance