Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 09/12/2006
Most Recent Update: 10/03/2006
Determination Date: 10/03/2006
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,056
SHORT BARK INDUSTRIES
TELLICO PLAINS, TENNESSEE
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of October 20, 2006 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on October 3, 2006 and
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006 (71 FR
63800).
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, filed on behalf of workers at Short Bark
Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee engaged in production of
cut pieces for camouflage clothing was denied because the
"contributed importantly" group eligibility requirement of
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The
“contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through
a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. The survey revealed
no imports of cut pieces for camouflage clothing in 2004, 2005
and January through August of 2006 when compared with the same
period in 2005. The subject firm did not import cut pieces for
camouflage clothing in the relevant period nor did it shift
production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that the layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to a shift
in production to Honduras and Puerto Rico.
Two company officials were contacted regarding the above
allegations. The company officials stated that the subject firm
did not shift production from the subject facility to Honduras.
The officials stated that the subject firm exported cut pieces
for camouflage clothing abroad to a customer with the foreign
facility for further production. This ceased its business with
the subject firm in order to perform all the cutting abroad. The
Short Bark Industries decided not to pursue the cutting business
any longer and sold some of the machinery from the subject firm
to the customer. Both of the officials confirmed that there is
no affiliation between Short Bark Industries, Short Plains,
Tennessee and its major customer.
Contact with an official of the subject firm’s customer
confirmed that all production for this customer was exclusively
for export purposes. As trade adjustment assistance is concerned
exclusively with whether imports impact layoffs of petitioning
worker groups, the above-mentioned allegations regarding
agreements between the subject firm and their foreign customer
base are irrelevant.
The official also confirmed that some of the production was
shifted from the subject facility to a plant in Puerto Rico
during the relevant time period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner seems to
imply that a shift of production to Puerto Rico on the part of
the company constitutes a shift of production to a country
included in Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The petitioner
seems to conclude that this shift to Puerto Rico is responsible
for separations at the subject facility.
Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and therefore any movement
of production to this region would not constitute a shift of
production to a foreign source.
The petitioner provided the name of the former supervisor
who according to the petitioner is currently in Honduras training
workers.
The official confirmed this statement and added that this
supervisor in question is now employed by the subject firm’s
customer and is working in Honduras on behalf of this customer.
The petitioner also provided a name of the subject firm’s
employee who is allegedly currently making patterns for the
Honduras plant.
The Department contacted this employee to verify the above
information. The employee stated that he is still employed by
the Short Bark Industries and that he does not make markers or
patterns for the Honduras plant.
The petitioner attached an article, with no reference to the
source or the date of the article. The article is a short
biography on the founder of the Short Bark Industries, and refers
to the activities of the subject firm from 1991 to 2003.
In its investigation, the Department considers events and
facts that occurred within a year prior to the date of the
petition. Thus, the period between 1991 and 2003 is outside of
the relevant period as established by the current petition date
of November 9, 2006.
The officials of the subject firm confirmed directly that
Short Bark Industries did not shift production from the subject
firm to any facility abroad in 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 13th day of December, 2006
/s/ Linda G. Poole_________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,056
SHORT BARK INDUSTRIES
TELLICO PLAINS, TENNESSEE
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 September 12, 2006, in
response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on
behalf of the workers of Short Bark Industries, Tellico Plains,
Tennessee. The workers are engaged in the production of cut pieces
for camouflage clothing.
The investigation determined that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met for workers of the subject firm.
The investigation revealed that subject firm did not shift the
production of cut pieces for camouflage clothing to a foreign
country, nor did the subject firm import cut pieces for camouflage
clothing from a foreign country.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
declining customers regarding their purchases of cut pieces for
camouflage clothing during 2004, 2005 and January through August
2006. The surveys determined that the customers did not import cut
pieces for camouflage clothing during the relevant period.
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 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 workers of Short Bark
Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee 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 3rd day of October, 2006.
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistanc
7
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,056
SHORT BARK INDUSTRIES
TELLICO PLAINS, TENNESSEE
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of October 20, 2006 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on October 3, 2006 and
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006 (71 FR
63800).
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, filed on behalf of workers at Short Bark
Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee engaged in production of
cut pieces for camouflage clothing was denied because the
"contributed importantly" group eligibility requirement of
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The
“contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through
a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. The survey revealed
no imports of cut pieces for camouflage clothing in 2004, 2005
and January through August of 2006 when compared with the same
period in 2005. The subject firm did not import cut pieces for
camouflage clothing in the relevant period nor did it shift
production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges
that the layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to a shift
in production to Honduras and Puerto Rico.
Two company officials were contacted regarding the above
allegations. The company officials stated that the subject firm
did not shift production from the subject facility to Honduras.
The officials stated that the subject firm exported cut pieces
for camouflage clothing abroad to a customer with the foreign
facility for further production. This ceased its business with
the subject firm in order to perform all the cutting abroad. The
Short Bark Industries decided not to pursue the cutting business
any longer and sold some of the machinery from the subject firm
to the customer. Both of the officials confirmed that there is
no affiliation between Short Bark Industries, Short Plains,
Tennessee and its major customer.
Contact with an official of the subject firm’s customer
confirmed that all production for this customer was exclusively
for export purposes. As trade adjustment assistance is concerned
exclusively with whether imports impact layoffs of petitioning
worker groups, the above-mentioned allegations regarding
agreements between the subject firm and their foreign customer
base are irrelevant.
The official also confirmed that some of the production was
shifted from the subject facility to a plant in Puerto Rico
during the relevant time period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner seems to
imply that a shift of production to Puerto Rico on the part of
the company constitutes a shift of production to a country
included in Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The petitioner
seems to conclude that this shift to Puerto Rico is responsible
for separations at the subject facility.
Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and therefore any movement
of production to this region would not constitute a shift of
production to a foreign source.
The petitioner provided the name of the former supervisor
who according to the petitioner is currently in Honduras training
workers.
The official confirmed this statement and added that this
supervisor in question is now employed by the subject firm’s
customer and is working in Honduras on behalf of this customer.
The petitioner also provided a name of the subject firm’s
employee who is allegedly currently making patterns for the
Honduras plant.
The Department contacted this employee to verify the above
information. The employee stated that he is still employed by
the Short Bark Industries and that he does not make markers or
patterns for the Honduras plant.
The petitioner attached an article, with no reference to the
source or the date of the article. The article is a short
biography on the founder of the Short Bark Industries, and refers
to the activities of the subject firm from 1991 to 2003.
In its investigation, the Department considers events and
facts that occurred within a year prior to the date of the
petition. Thus, the period between 1991 and 2003 is outside of
the relevant period as established by the current petition date
of November 9, 2006.
The officials of the subject firm confirmed directly that
Short Bark Industries did not shift production from the subject
firm to any facility abroad in 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 13th day of December, 2006
/s/ Linda G. Poole_________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,056
SHORT BARK INDUSTRIES
TELLICO PLAINS, TENNESSEE
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 September 12, 2006, in
response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on
behalf of the workers of Short Bark Industries, Tellico Plains,
Tennessee. The workers are engaged in the production of cut pieces
for camouflage clothing.
The investigation determined that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met for workers of the subject firm.
The investigation revealed that subject firm did not shift the
production of cut pieces for camouflage clothing to a foreign
country, nor did the subject firm import cut pieces for camouflage
clothing from a foreign country.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
declining customers regarding their purchases of cut pieces for
camouflage clothing during 2004, 2005 and January through August
2006. The surveys determined that the customers did not import cut
pieces for camouflage clothing during the relevant period.
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 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 workers of Short Bark
Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee 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 3rd day of October, 2006.
/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistanc
7