Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 03/08/2005
Most Recent Update: 03/18/2005
Determination Date: 03/18/2005
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,701
TWIGS & IVY BOUTIQUE
POTOSI, MISSOURI
Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of April 14, 2005, a petitioner 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 2, 2005,
(70 FR 22710).
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, which was filed on behalf of workers at
Twigs & Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri engaged in the production
of floral arrangements, was denied based on the findings that
during the relevant time period, the subject company did not
separate or threaten to separate a significant number or
proportion of workers, as required by Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that there was an additional employee of Twigs and Ivy Boutique
who was mistakenly omitted from the employment list originally
submitted to the Department by the company official.
This alleged employee was contacted by the Department to
confirm the above statement. The employee stated that she worked
for Twigs and Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri in 2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers the relevant employment data for the
facility where the petitioning worker group was employed. The
relevant period represents four quarters back from the date of
the petition, thus data from 2002 is irrelevant in this
investigation. As fewer than three workers were impacted at the
subject firm during the relevant time period, employment
threshold requirement as outlined in Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974 was not met.
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 May, 2005
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
__________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,701
TWIGS & IVY BOUTIQUE
POTOSI, MISSOURI
Negative 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, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.
The investigation was initiated on March 8, 2005 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Twigs & Ivy Boutique,
Potosi, Missouri. The workers sell floral arrangements containing
flowers produced elsewhere by unaffiliated vendors.
The investigation revealed that criteria I.A and II.A have not
been met.
The subject firm did not separate a significant number of
workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The
number of separated workers is significant if at least three
workers in a firm with a workforce of fewer than 50 are affected.
In the current case, fewer than three workers were impacted at the
subject firm during the relevant period.
In addition, 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 assis-
tance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since
the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of Twigs
& Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 18th day of March 2005.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,701
TWIGS & IVY BOUTIQUE
POTOSI, MISSOURI
Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of April 14, 2005, a petitioner 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 2, 2005,
(70 FR 22710).
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, which was filed on behalf of workers at
Twigs & Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri engaged in the production
of floral arrangements, was denied based on the findings that
during the relevant time period, the subject company did not
separate or threaten to separate a significant number or
proportion of workers, as required by Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that there was an additional employee of Twigs and Ivy Boutique
who was mistakenly omitted from the employment list originally
submitted to the Department by the company official.
This alleged employee was contacted by the Department to
confirm the above statement. The employee stated that she worked
for Twigs and Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri in 2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers the relevant employment data for the
facility where the petitioning worker group was employed. The
relevant period represents four quarters back from the date of
the petition, thus data from 2002 is irrelevant in this
investigation. As fewer than three workers were impacted at the
subject firm during the relevant time period, employment
threshold requirement as outlined in Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974 was not met.
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 May, 2005
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
__________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-56,701
TWIGS & IVY BOUTIQUE
POTOSI, MISSOURI
Negative 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, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced by
such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a beneficiary country
under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.
The investigation was initiated on March 8, 2005 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Twigs & Ivy Boutique,
Potosi, Missouri. The workers sell floral arrangements containing
flowers produced elsewhere by unaffiliated vendors.
The investigation revealed that criteria I.A and II.A have not
been met.
The subject firm did not separate a significant number of
workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The
number of separated workers is significant if at least three
workers in a firm with a workforce of fewer than 50 are affected.
In the current case, fewer than three workers were impacted at the
subject firm during the relevant period.
In addition, 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 assis-
tance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since
the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of Twigs
& Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 18th day of March 2005.
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance