DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,098

COLONIAL TANNING CORPORATION
GLOVERSVILLE, NEW YORK

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of June 17, 2003, the Union of Needletrades,
Industrial, and Textile Employees requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination
regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the
subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
denial notice was signed on May 23, 2003 and published in the
Federal Register on June 19, 2003 (68 FR 36845).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Colonial
Tanning Corporation, Gloversville, New York engaged in the
production of tanned leather, was denied because the "contributed
importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The "contributed
importantly" test is generally demonstrated through a survey of
the workers' firm's customers. The Department conducted a survey
of the subject firm’s major customers regarding their purchases
of competitive products in 2001 through April of 2003. The
respondents reported no increased imports. The subject firm
shifted production to China, but did not import tanned deerskins
during the relevant period.
The union alleges that the subject firm is affiliated with
two other companies and that these two companies imported tanned
leather from foreign sources.
In the original investigation, one of the two companies
noted by the union above was listed as a major declining
customer; their survey response indicated no imports. In regard
to the second company named by the union, a company official was
contacted. In regard to this second company, it was revealed that
one of the owners of the subject firm also owned the rights to
the company name of the second company. It was also revealed that
the total sales volume of this affiliated company was negligible
relative to the sales volume at the subject firm, and thus any
imports that occurred at the second company could not contribute
importantly to layoffs at the subject firm.
The union also alleged that subject firm workers should be
eligible because workers at a “direct competitor” (Johnstown
Leather, TA-W-51,104) were certified eligible for trade
adjustment assistance.
A review of the abovementioned case for workers at Johnstown
Leather revealed that these workers were certified eligible for
trade adjustment assistance based on increased customer imports.
However, as Colonial Tanning Corporation has a different major
declining customer base, this certification has no bearing on the
eligibility of subject firm workers for TAA.
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 16th day of July, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance