DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-58,113

UNIMATRIX AMERICAS
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On February 22, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2006 (71 FR 10717-
10718).
The petition for the workers of Unimatrix Americas,
Greensboro, North Carolina engaged in production planning and
sales of apparel products was denied because the petitioning
workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Act.
The company official filed a request for reconsideration in
which the petitioners contend that the Department erred in its
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a
service and further convey that workers of the subject firm
supported production of an affiliated firm Unifi by “pulling
through Unifi’s domestically-produced yarns into domestically-
manufactured garments” and “supported other unaffiliated domestic
apparel manufacturing facilities.” The petitioner further states
that the subject firm should be considered a downstream producer
for Unifi, Inc. because it assisted Unifi, Inc. in delivering and
distributing their products to garments manufacturers. The
petitioner concludes that because Unimatrix promoted usage of
yarn manufactured by Unifi in the production of fabric and
garments done by independent companies which were contracted by
Unimatrix, the workers of the subject firm should be considered
in support of production of yarn at Unifi, Inc. The petitioner
alleges that increased foreign competition and financial health
of Unifi, Inc. had a direct negative impact on Unimatrix Americas
and thus workers of the subject firm should be eligible for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard
to the nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The
official stated that the petitioning group of workers at the
subject firm was coordinating all sourcing activities for
production of apparel done by independent contractors in Central
America. The workers were responsible for ”production planning
and sales of domestically-produced apparel products containing
fabric domestically-produced Unifi yarn.” The subject firm
ordered, purchased and exported supplies and goods needed for
production of garments, including purchasing of Unifi yarn and
arranging its further production into fabric and garments. The
workers of the subject company located different independent
manufacturing contractors in Central America, monitored their
production and kept customers of Unimatrix informed of all
production issues and ship dates. The official stated that
workers of the subject firm also coordinated importing of the
goods back into the United States and handled final shipments and
invoicing. The company official stated that Unimatrix served as
the “middleman” between different production companies and that
majority of Unimatrix’ customers, who manufacture garments have
moved to sourcing from abroad, thus negatively impacting the
subject firm.
The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in
ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for
trade adjustment assistance, but rather only whether they
produced an article within the meaning of section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation on reconsideration revealed that Unimatrix
Americas, Greensboro, North Carolina is affiliated with Unifi,
Inc. Workers of Unifi, Inc. in Yadkinville, North Carolina and
Madison, North Carolina manufacture polyester yarn and nylon.
Further investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm
did not support production of polyester yarn and/or nylon at
these facilities but sold apparel, utilizing Unifi products.
Workers of the subject firm purchased yarn from Unifi, outsourced
production of fabric out of this yarn to independent companies,
exported fabric to foreign companies for manufacturing of apparel
and imported final products back into the United States.
Providing global sourcing, production planning, sales and
marketing is not considered production of an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do
not produce an “article” within the meaning of the Trade Act of
1974.
The petitioner attached a document on Unifi’s Forth Quarter
Results to support the allegations.
A careful review of this document revealed Unifi’s decision
to focus on the internal resources to support the downstream
initiatives around the globe. The document clarifies that Unifi,
Inc. developed internal knowledge, expertise, and relationships
to drive Unifi’s products to the market and as a result it will
discontinue Unimatrix Americas. All functions performed by
Unimatrix Americas will be utilized within Unifi because it
established a new very successful business model to have a
successful sourcing.
The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of
the primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers did
not produce an article.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Unimatrix
Americas, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th day of March, 2006.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner


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