Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date: 08/05/2003
Filed Date: 08/06/2004
Most Recent Update: 09/14/2004
Determination Date: 09/14/2004
Expiration Date: 09/14/2006
Other Worker Groups on This Petition
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-55,395B
DANA UNDIES
COLQUITT, GEORGIA
Notice of Revised Determination
On Remand
On June 13, 2005, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s motion for
voluntary remand in Former Employees of Dana Undies v. U.S.
Department of Labor (Court No. 04-00615).
A petition, dated August 5, 2004, for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
was filed on behalf of workers and former workers of Dana Undies
facilities in Colquitt, Georgia; Blakely, Georgia; and Arlington,
Georgia. The investigation revealed that the workers of the
Blakely and Arlington facilities were adversely affected by imports
of infant’s, toddler’s, boy’s and girl’s underwear, and
consequently the workers of the Blakely and Arlington facilities
were certified as eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA on September
14, 2004 (TA-W-55,395 and TA-W-55,395A).
In the case of the Colquitt facility, the investigation
revealed that all of the workers were separated more than one year
prior to the date of the petition. Section 223(b)(1) of the Act
specifies that no certification may apply to any worker whose last
separation occurred more than one year before the date of the
petition. Therefore, the September 14, 2004 notice included a
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA and
ATAA for the Colquitt facility (TA-W-55,395B). The Department’s
notice of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for TAA and
ATAA for the above facilities was published in the Federal Register
on September 23, 2004 (69 FR 57089).
By letter dated October 7, 2004, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration, stating that: “In January 2003,
February 2003, July 2003, and September 2003 myself (Alice DeBruyn)
and Ethel Haire told employees of the Georgia Department of Labor
in Bainbridge, Georgia that the Colquitt plant had been closed due
to work going out of the country, due to imports” and that “the
last pay date for the Colquitt Plant was January 3, 2003.”
By letter dated October 28, 2004, the petitioner’s request for
reconsideration was dismissed based on the finding that no new
facts of a substantive nature which would bear importantly on the
Department’s determination had been provided by the petitioner. On
November 4, 2004, the Department’s Dismissal of Application for
Reconsideration was issued. The Department’s Notice of Dismissal
was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2004 (69 FR
65457).
On October 8, 2004, the petitioner filed an appeal with the
U.S. Court of International Trade (“USCIT”). In the amended
complaint filed March 10, 2005, the petitioner suggested that the
Georgia Department of Labor, acting as agent of the United States
in the administration of the TAA program, advised the employees of
the Colquitt plant, during the year following their termination,
that they could not file a petition for TAA and, thus, prevented
the employees from filing a petition during the statutorily
required period.
In its June 13, 2005 Order, the USCIT granted the Department’s
motion for a voluntary remand to determine whether the petitioners
are eligible for certification for worker adjustment assistance
benefits.
During the remand investigation, the Department received an
affidavit of the petitioner’s allegations and contacted numerous
officials of the Georgia Department of Labor to determine whether
the petitioners were indeed prevented or discouraged from filing a
petition during the statutory period.
The remand investigation revealed that, although no officials
of the Georgia Department of Labor recalled refusing to allow any
worker to submit a petition for TAA group certification, at least
some of them were under the impression that the jobs of the
Colquitt plant had been transferred domestically to the Blakely
plant. This understanding was, apparently, based on a conversation
between a Georgia Department Labor official and a Dana Undies
Company official (whose name could not be recalled).
Moreover, in the course of the remand investigation, the
petitioner submitted an affidavit which states that, during the
statutory period, she and other separated employees were told by
Georgia Department of Labor officials that the Blakely plant was
still in operation and thus the Colquitt terminations were not due
to imports but from lack of work and thus no petition could be
filed.
Based on the above, it seems likely that, at a minimum,
through a series of miscommunications both between the Dana Undies
Company and the Georgia Department of Labor, and between the
Georgia Department of Labor and the affected employees of the
Colquitt plant, the Colquitt employees were led to believe they
would not be eligible for TAA benefits. This generally coincides
with the allegations in the plaintiff’s affidavit, which states
that the plaintiff sought to apply for TAA benefits during the
statutory period.
Therefore, the Department has determined that it is
appropriate to investigate the workers’ eligibility to apply for
Trade Act benefits. Moreover, since the petitioners are seeking
certification for eligibility to apply for ATAA, the Department
will assume that the plaintiff intended to submit a petition at the
earliest time they could apply for ATAA. The ATAA program went
into affect on August 6, 2003, so the Department will consider the
petition submitted on that date.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group
eligibility requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B)
of Section 222 of the Trade Act must be met. It is determined in
this case that the requirements of (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 have
been met. The subject firm separated a significant number of
workers, and shifted production of infant and toddler underwear
from the Colquitt facility to China and Thailand. Company imports
of infant and toddler underwear were likely to increase at the time
of the Colquitt plant’s closure, and did increase soon thereafter.
Moreover, the investigation revealed that all criteria
regarding ATAA for the subject worker group have been met. A
significant number or proportion of the worker group are age fifty
years or over, the workers possess skills that are not easily
transferable, and competitive conditions within the industry are
adverse.
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that there was a shift in production of
infant and toddler underwear from the workers’ firm or subdivision
to China and Thailand of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following
certification:
"All workers of Dana Undies, Colquitt, Georgia (TA-W-55,395B)
who became totally or partially separated from employment on
or after August 6, 2002 through two years from the date of
certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974."
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 12th day of September 2005
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-55,395
DANA UNDIES
BLAKELY, GEORGIA
TA-W-55,395A
DANA UNDIES
ARLINGTON, GEORGIA
TA-W-55,395B
DANA UNDIES
COLQUITT, GEORGIA
Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
USC 2273), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The investigation was initiated on August 6, 2004 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Dana Undies, Blakely,
Arlington, and Colquitt, Georgia. The workers at Blakely and
Colquitt produced infants’, toddlers’, and boys’ and girls’
underwear. Workers at Arlington supported the plant in Blakely.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance, the group eligibility requirements in either paragraph
(a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 of the Trade Act must be met.
It is determined in the case of the Blakely and Arlington
facilities that the requirements of (a)(2)(A) of Section 222 have
been met.
The investigation revealed that sales, production and
employment at the Blakely/Arlington facilities decreased from 2002
to 2003 and in January through July, 2004 compared with the same
period of 2003.
The subject firm has increased its company imports of
underwear from Thailand in 2004 impacting production and employment
at the Blakely facility.
United States aggregate imports of infant’s apparel increased
absolutely and relative to shipments in 2003 compared with 2002.
The import to consumption ratio was over 1,000 percent in 2003.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for
older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements
of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has
determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have
been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over
and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive
conditions within the industry are adverse.
Furthermore, Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 6, 2004 in
response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Dana
Undies, Colquitt, Georgia.
The investigation revealed that in the case of Dana Undies,
Colquitt, Georgia, all workers were separated from the subject
firm more than one year before the date of the petition. Section
223 (b) of the Act specifies that no certification may apply to
any worker whose last separation occurred more than one year
before the date of the petition. Consequently, further
investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the
investigation of the Colquitt facility has been terminated.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that increases of imports of articles
like or directly competitive with underwear produced at Dana
Undies, Blakely and Arlington, Georgia contributed importantly to
the total or partial separation of workers and to the decline in
sales or production at that firm or subdivision. In accordance
with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Dana Undies, Blakely, Georgia (TA-W-55,395),
and Arlington, Georgia (TA-W-55,395A), who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after August 5, 2003
through two years from the date of certification are eligible
to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974.”
Furthermore, I determine that the investigation of workers of Dana
Undies, Colquitt, Georgia (TA-W-55,395B) has been terminated for
the aforementioned reasons.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 14th day of September 2004.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-55,395B
DANA UNDIES
COLQUITT, GEORGIA
Notice of Revised Determination
On Remand
On June 13, 2005, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s motion for
voluntary remand in Former Employees of Dana Undies v. U.S.
Department of Labor (Court No. 04-00615).
A petition, dated August 5, 2004, for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
was filed on behalf of workers and former workers of Dana Undies
facilities in Colquitt, Georgia; Blakely, Georgia; and Arlington,
Georgia. The investigation revealed that the workers of the
Blakely and Arlington facilities were adversely affected by imports
of infant’s, toddler’s, boy’s and girl’s underwear, and
consequently the workers of the Blakely and Arlington facilities
were certified as eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA on September
14, 2004 (TA-W-55,395 and TA-W-55,395A).
In the case of the Colquitt facility, the investigation
revealed that all of the workers were separated more than one year
prior to the date of the petition. Section 223(b)(1) of the Act
specifies that no certification may apply to any worker whose last
separation occurred more than one year before the date of the
petition. Therefore, the September 14, 2004 notice included a
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA and
ATAA for the Colquitt facility (TA-W-55,395B). The Department’s
notice of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for TAA and
ATAA for the above facilities was published in the Federal Register
on September 23, 2004 (69 FR 57089).
By letter dated October 7, 2004, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration, stating that: “In January 2003,
February 2003, July 2003, and September 2003 myself (Alice DeBruyn)
and Ethel Haire told employees of the Georgia Department of Labor
in Bainbridge, Georgia that the Colquitt plant had been closed due
to work going out of the country, due to imports” and that “the
last pay date for the Colquitt Plant was January 3, 2003.”
By letter dated October 28, 2004, the petitioner’s request for
reconsideration was dismissed based on the finding that no new
facts of a substantive nature which would bear importantly on the
Department’s determination had been provided by the petitioner. On
November 4, 2004, the Department’s Dismissal of Application for
Reconsideration was issued. The Department’s Notice of Dismissal
was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2004 (69 FR
65457).
On October 8, 2004, the petitioner filed an appeal with the
U.S. Court of International Trade (“USCIT”). In the amended
complaint filed March 10, 2005, the petitioner suggested that the
Georgia Department of Labor, acting as agent of the United States
in the administration of the TAA program, advised the employees of
the Colquitt plant, during the year following their termination,
that they could not file a petition for TAA and, thus, prevented
the employees from filing a petition during the statutorily
required period.
In its June 13, 2005 Order, the USCIT granted the Department’s
motion for a voluntary remand to determine whether the petitioners
are eligible for certification for worker adjustment assistance
benefits.
During the remand investigation, the Department received an
affidavit of the petitioner’s allegations and contacted numerous
officials of the Georgia Department of Labor to determine whether
the petitioners were indeed prevented or discouraged from filing a
petition during the statutory period.
The remand investigation revealed that, although no officials
of the Georgia Department of Labor recalled refusing to allow any
worker to submit a petition for TAA group certification, at least
some of them were under the impression that the jobs of the
Colquitt plant had been transferred domestically to the Blakely
plant. This understanding was, apparently, based on a conversation
between a Georgia Department Labor official and a Dana Undies
Company official (whose name could not be recalled).
Moreover, in the course of the remand investigation, the
petitioner submitted an affidavit which states that, during the
statutory period, she and other separated employees were told by
Georgia Department of Labor officials that the Blakely plant was
still in operation and thus the Colquitt terminations were not due
to imports but from lack of work and thus no petition could be
filed.
Based on the above, it seems likely that, at a minimum,
through a series of miscommunications both between the Dana Undies
Company and the Georgia Department of Labor, and between the
Georgia Department of Labor and the affected employees of the
Colquitt plant, the Colquitt employees were led to believe they
would not be eligible for TAA benefits. This generally coincides
with the allegations in the plaintiff’s affidavit, which states
that the plaintiff sought to apply for TAA benefits during the
statutory period.
Therefore, the Department has determined that it is
appropriate to investigate the workers’ eligibility to apply for
Trade Act benefits. Moreover, since the petitioners are seeking
certification for eligibility to apply for ATAA, the Department
will assume that the plaintiff intended to submit a petition at the
earliest time they could apply for ATAA. The ATAA program went
into affect on August 6, 2003, so the Department will consider the
petition submitted on that date.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group
eligibility requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B)
of Section 222 of the Trade Act must be met. It is determined in
this case that the requirements of (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 have
been met. The subject firm separated a significant number of
workers, and shifted production of infant and toddler underwear
from the Colquitt facility to China and Thailand. Company imports
of infant and toddler underwear were likely to increase at the time
of the Colquitt plant’s closure, and did increase soon thereafter.
Moreover, the investigation revealed that all criteria
regarding ATAA for the subject worker group have been met. A
significant number or proportion of the worker group are age fifty
years or over, the workers possess skills that are not easily
transferable, and competitive conditions within the industry are
adverse.
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that there was a shift in production of
infant and toddler underwear from the workers’ firm or subdivision
to China and Thailand of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following
certification:
"All workers of Dana Undies, Colquitt, Georgia (TA-W-55,395B)
who became totally or partially separated from employment on
or after August 6, 2002 through two years from the date of
certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974."
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 12th day of September 2005
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-55,395
DANA UNDIES
BLAKELY, GEORGIA
TA-W-55,395A
DANA UNDIES
ARLINGTON, GEORGIA
TA-W-55,395B
DANA UNDIES
COLQUITT, GEORGIA
Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
USC 2273), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The investigation was initiated on August 6, 2004 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Dana Undies, Blakely,
Arlington, and Colquitt, Georgia. The workers at Blakely and
Colquitt produced infants’, toddlers’, and boys’ and girls’
underwear. Workers at Arlington supported the plant in Blakely.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance, the group eligibility requirements in either paragraph
(a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 of the Trade Act must be met.
It is determined in the case of the Blakely and Arlington
facilities that the requirements of (a)(2)(A) of Section 222 have
been met.
The investigation revealed that sales, production and
employment at the Blakely/Arlington facilities decreased from 2002
to 2003 and in January through July, 2004 compared with the same
period of 2003.
The subject firm has increased its company imports of
underwear from Thailand in 2004 impacting production and employment
at the Blakely facility.
United States aggregate imports of infant’s apparel increased
absolutely and relative to shipments in 2003 compared with 2002.
The import to consumption ratio was over 1,000 percent in 2003.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for
older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements
of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has
determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have
been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over
and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive
conditions within the industry are adverse.
Furthermore, Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 6, 2004 in
response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Dana
Undies, Colquitt, Georgia.
The investigation revealed that in the case of Dana Undies,
Colquitt, Georgia, all workers were separated from the subject
firm more than one year before the date of the petition. Section
223 (b) of the Act specifies that no certification may apply to
any worker whose last separation occurred more than one year
before the date of the petition. Consequently, further
investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the
investigation of the Colquitt facility has been terminated.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that increases of imports of articles
like or directly competitive with underwear produced at Dana
Undies, Blakely and Arlington, Georgia contributed importantly to
the total or partial separation of workers and to the decline in
sales or production at that firm or subdivision. In accordance
with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Dana Undies, Blakely, Georgia (TA-W-55,395),
and Arlington, Georgia (TA-W-55,395A), who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after August 5, 2003
through two years from the date of certification are eligible
to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974.”
Furthermore, I determine that the investigation of workers of Dana
Undies, Colquitt, Georgia (TA-W-55,395B) has been terminated for
the aforementioned reasons.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 14th day of September 2004.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance