DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-60,388

HARTZ & COMPANY
HL HARTZ & SONS
NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Notice of Revised Determination
On Reopening

On May 14, 2007, the Department, on its own motion, reopened
its investigation for the former workers of the subject firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination issued on December 1, 2006 because the workers
provided a service that was not in support of the firm’s
production of apparel. Since the workers were denied eligibility
to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) they were also
denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance (ATAA) for older workers.
The Department has determined that the information provided
by a former employee of the firm shows that the duties performed
by workers of Hartz & Company in New York, New York, including
design and marketing, supported the production of men’s and
women’s suits and bottoms at a Hartz & Company facility located
domestically. The production workers were certified eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance based on increased aggregate U.S.
imports of men’s and women’s suits and bottoms.

All workers of Hartz & Company, New York, New York, were
separated when the production facility closed in October 2006.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
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 in the apparel industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on
reopening, it is concluded that increased imports of articles
like or directly competitive with men’s and women’s suits and
bottoms produced by Hartz & Company, contributed importantly to
the total or partial separation of workers and to the decline in
sales or production sales at that firm or subdivision.
In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974,
I make the following revised determination:
"All workers of Hartz & Company, HL Hartz & Sons,
New York, New York, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after November 6, 2005,
through two years from the date of certification, are
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section
223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended."
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 16th day of May 2007.



/s/ Linda G. Poole___________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-60,388

HARTZ & CO.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Negative Determination 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 investigation was initiated on November 8, 2006 in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of Hartz & Co., New York, New York. Workers at the subject
firm operated a showroom and sold piece goods (apparel).
In order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker
group seeking certification (or on whose behalf certification is
being sought) must work for a "firm" or appropriate subdivision
that produces an article domestically and there must be a
relationship between the workers' work and the article produced by
the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision. The investigation
revealed that although production of an article(s) occurred within
the firm or appropriate subdivision, the showroom workers do not
support this production. Thus, the worker group cannot be
considered import impacted or affected by a shift in production of
an article.
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 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 of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Hartz & Co., New
York, New York, 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.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 1st day of December 2006

/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance








6