DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-54,635

WESTSIDE STITCHING, INC.
WEST WYOMING, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 12, 2004, 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 16, 2004, and published in the Federal Register on July 7,
2004 (69 FR 40983).
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 Westside Stitching, Inc.,
West Wyoming, Pennsylvania engaged in production of motion
furniture 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 survey revealed no increase of imports of motion
furniture during the relevant period. The subject firm did not
import motion furniture in the relevant period nor did it shift
production to a foreign country.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its
business due to its major customer importing products from China.
This customer was surveyed by the Department during the
original investigation. A review of the survey confirmed no
import purchases of motion furniture during the relevant period.
The petitioner further states that the subject firm
manufactures only motion furniture, excluding any lift
mechanisms, and that the subject firm’s customers started
importing a lift mechanism, a component to the motion furniture.
The petitioner concludes that, because the production of lift
mechanisms occurs abroad, the subject firm workers producing
motion furniture are import impacted.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must
consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey
of the subject firm’s major declining customer regarding their
purchases of motion furniture. The survey revealed that the
declining customers did not import motion furniture during the
relevant period.
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 3rd day of August, 2004


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

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