DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,659

BROOKLINE, INC.
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 7, 2003, a company official 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 June 23, 2003, and
published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2003 (68 FR 41179).
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 Brookline, Inc., Charlotte,
North Carolina 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 customers of the
workers’ firm. The survey revealed that none of the respondents
increased their purchases of knit fabric. The company did not
import knit fabric in the relevant period nor did it shift
production to a foreign country.
The company official states that his business, as well as
the cut and sew businesses he sells to, have been displaced as a
result of retailers purchasing finished apparel abroad. The
official concludes that the subject firm is obviously import
impacted as a result of this.
In assessing import impact, the Department considers imports
of like or directly competitive products (in this case, knit
fabrics) to determine import impact. Thus, the imports of
apparel are not relevant in determining import impact in a
primary investigation of these workers. The imports of apparel
would be relative in determining secondary impact on the subject
firm workers if the subject firm supplied knit fabric to
customers producing apparel who were under active TAA
certification. The Department examined whether the subject
workers were eligible for trade adjustment assistance under
secondary impact and determined that only a negligible amount of
the customer base was trade-affected.


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 24th day of July, 2003

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

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