DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,073

COLLINS & AIKMAN AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
MARSHALL, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of May 30, 2003, the International Union,
UAW, Region 1C and Local Union 1294 requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject
firm. The denial notice was signed on April 16, 2003, and
published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2003 (68 FR 23322).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.


The petition for the workers of Collins & Aikman Automotive
Systems, Marshall, Michigan was denied because the “contributed
importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of
the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The “contributed importantly”
test is generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of
the workers’ firm. The survey revealed that none of the
respondents increased their purchases of vibration dampeners. The
company did not import vibration dampeners in the relevant period
nor did it shift production to a foreign source.
The union asserts that the company shifted production to
Canada, and in support of this, includes a letter dated October
1, 2002 from a former company official who indicates that some
plant production previously supplied by the subject plant to an
affiliated Canadian facility was outsourced to a Canadian vendor.
A review of the initial investigation revealed that the same
company official who provided the letter noted above also
provided information to the Department in March of 2003. This
information included a table that clearly delineated which
customers were responsible for sales losses from the subject
plant in the relevant period, and provides exact figures of the
volume of sales loss that each customer was responsible for. The
table further indicates that a Collin’s & Aikman facility in
Canada ceased purchasing vibration deadeners from the subject
facility, and that this production was “resourced to another
vendor”. However, in context to total plant production, the
sales loss to this customer was negligible. Further, in a
communication with the Department during the initial
investigation, this same company official stated that it was the
decline in business from another customer who represented the
overwhelming majority of subject plant business that precipitated
the shift in production to another domestic facility, and
subsequent closure of the subject plant.
The union appears to allege that a significant shift in
production to Canada is indicated in a local new article that
mentions the closure of two Collins & Aikman domestic plants
(including the subject facility) and later states that a Collins
& Aikman facility in Ontario, Canada “took on more business as
Collins & Aikman restructured with work transferred from closed
plants.” The union infers that the subject plant must be one of
the plants that shifted production to Canada because it is one of
two plants mentioned as being closed.
As already indicated, a negligible amount of production was
shifted from the subject facility to Canada, albeit not
significant enough to contribute significantly to layoffs. Plant
closure is predominantly attributable to the decline in business
from the subject facility’s largest customer and a subsequent
decision by the company to shift production from the subject
facility to another domestic facility in Ohio.


Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 27th day of June, 2003

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance