DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-61,877

FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT
DBA SHERWOOD FOREST FAMILY GOLF
CONYERS, GEORGIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application postmarked September 6, 2007 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 applicable to workers of
Family Entertainment, dba Sherwood Forest Family Golf, Conyers,
Georgia was signed on August 22, 2007 and published in the
Federal Register on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51845).
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 Family
Entertainment, dba Sherwood Forest Family Golf, Conyers, Georgia
engaged in activities related to the operation of an amusement
park was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce
an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as
“activities related to operating an amusement park” and further
conveys that workers of the subject firm were not employees of
the amusement park, but were rather workers of the Marketing
Division.
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard
to the nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The
official stated that Family Entertainment, dba Sherwood Forest
Family Golf, Conyers, Georgia operates an amusement park, where
the following entertainment services are provided: putt-putt
golf, a raceway of go-karts, bumper boats, bumper carts, batting
cages and an arcade. The official clarified that Sherwood Forest
does not use divisions and that employees of the subject firm
“work counters at golf desk or concessions, operate rides by
taking tickets, administering instructions, assisting patrons
into moving rides and monitoring throughout the length of the
ride.”
The official further stated that two petitioning workers
were hired as sales agents to try a new promotional program in
August 2006. These employees sold Everything Goes passes and
performed promotional activities for the amusement park by
“handing out flyers to whomever they choose to solicit.” The
official stated that even though these two workers were “on foot
advertising/promotional type employees” and were not required to
be stationary at the place of business, and were paid commission
along with a salary, they were employees of Sherwood Forest
Family Golf and performed services supporting business and
activities of the amusement park.
The petitioner further alleges that the petitioning workers
“produced and mass produced items such as flyers, pamphlets,
guides, rule books, manuals, instruction sets” etc. The
petitioner stated that “he was in charge of production
strategies/marketing of many promotional items”.
The company official clarified that the petitioning workers
“in no way produced, created, designed nor mass produced” any of
the above mentioned articles for the subject firm. The official
stated that Family Entertainment has a management team which
completes all these tasks and that the petitioning workers were
only in charge of the way they sold Everything Goes passes and
distributed flyers.
To support his allegations, the petitioner enclosed a copy
of the Georgia Department of Labor Unemployment Claims Examiner’s
Determination which states that the reason behind the
petitioner’s separation from the subject firm was a lack of work,
and a stub reflecting information concerning the final
unemployment check. For the purposes of this investigation,
these documents do not contain any evidence that the workers of
the subject firm created an article and that there was a shift in
production of an article by the subject firm abroad.
The petitioner also enclosed various flyers, brochures,
coupons, pass cards and promotional advertisements and stated
that workers of the subject firm created and produced these
articles.
The company official verified that these pass cards, coupons
and advertisements were designed by the subject firm’s previous
manager and were prepared and to a professional local printing
company. The official further confirmed that the rest of the
promotional material was typed as a word document and printed on
a computer printer by the administrative staff of either Family
Entertainment or another domestic company, Atlanta Cutlery. The
administrative employees of the subject firm continue to perform
these functions to support and promote business activities of the
amusement park.
The petitioner further alleges that the subject firm shifted
production of the articles to India and “the fact that these
articles are no longer produced here is the reason that we are no
longer employed”. To support these allegations, the petitioner
enclosed copies of handwritten “Weekly Sales Report” and
“Business Contact Form” stating that the workers performed
telemarketing calls and that these tasks are now performed in
India.
The company official stated that Family Entertainment dba
Sherwood Forest did not shift any job functions to India and is
not importing any articles from the foreign source. The official
further stated that “the only relation Family Entertainment has
with India is the fact that it is owned by a U.S. Citizen from
India” and that the previous manager of the subject firm who is
no longer affiliated with the company, resides in India with his
family at present time. The company official confirmed that the
subject firm is in the business of entertainment services and
whatever printed material might be designed or produced by the
administrative staff of the subject firm as incidental to these
services continues to be designed and produced by the subject
firm or other domestic companies.
The company official further stated that the petitioning
workers were separated from the subject firm after the management
evaluated the promotional program and made a decision to
discontinue the program due to low profitability.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner doubts
the accuracy of the information provided by Family Entertainment.
The Department has no evidence that would suggest that the
officials of the Family Entertainment had any reason to mislead
the investigation or that they had any interest in the outcome of
this determination that might have been adverse to the former
employees of the subject firm.
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 16th day of October, 2007.


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

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


4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,877

FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT
DBA SHERWOOD FOREST FAMILY GOLF
CONYERS, GEORGIA

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 July 25, 2007, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Family Entertainment,
dba Sherwood Forest Family Golf, Conyers, Georgia. The workers
performed activities related to the operation of an amusement park.
The investigation revealed that Family Entertainment, dba
Sherwood Forest Family Golf, Conyers, Georgia, does not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) of the Act. 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 and there must be a relationship between the
workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm or
appropriate subdivision. The amusement park workers do not support
a firm or appropriate subdivision that produces an article
domestically and thus the worker group can not be considered import
impacted or affected by a shift in production of an article.
The petitioning workers in this case stated that they had
designed and produced promotional flyers and special passes for the
subject amusement park. However, the company stated that the
petitioning workers were involved only in distributing the flyers
and passes and that the design of those articles was done years ago
by a former manager of the facility.
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, I determine that all workers of Family
Entertainment, dba Sherwood Forest Family Golf, Conyers, Georgia,
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 22nd day of August 2007


/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







- 6 -