DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,444

POIRIER’S, INC.
FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated January 15, 2008, a company official
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on
December 12, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on
December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74344).
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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for
workers of Poirier’s, Inc., Fall River, Massachusetts was based
on the finding that the worker group does not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner states that services provided by workers at
the subject “contribute to the final production process”. The
petitioner attached the description of various inspections that
the car dealer needs to provide to the vehicles before selling
them to customers. The petitioner alleges that because the
services provided by workers at the subject firm are required by
“state and federal laws”, workers of the subject firm who retail
automobiles should be certified eligible for TAA.
The investigation revealed that the workers of Poirier’s,
Inc., Fall River, Massachusetts are engaged in retail of new and
used cars, auto parts, supplies and service of automobiles.
These functions, as described above, are not considered
production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the
Trade Act.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been 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 in Washington, D.C., this 26th day of February 2008.


/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-62,444

POIRIER’S, INC.
FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS

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 13, 2007, in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of Poirier’s, Inc., Fall River, Massachusetts. The workers
are engaged in the sales and service of automobiles.
The firm is an automobile dealership comprised of various
departments, including sales, service, parts and administrative.
The investigation revealed that the Poirier’s, Inc., Fall
River, Massachusetts 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 sales and service workers described above 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.
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 Poirier’s, Inc.,
Fall River, Massachusetts, 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 12th day of December 2007


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




- 6 -