Petitioner Type: Company
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 03/06/2008
Most Recent Update: 03/24/2008
Determination Date: 03/24/2008
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-62,964
G-III APPAREL GROUP
STARLO DRESSES DIVISION, COMPUTER PATTERNS TEAM
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 22, 2008, petitioners 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 March 24, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2008 (73 FR
19900).
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination signed on March 24, 2008 was based on the finding
that imports of electronically marked and graded patterns did not
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant
and there was no shift of production to a country that is a party
to a free trade agreement with the United States or a beneficiary
country. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
domestic customers. In this instance, the subject firm did not
sell electronically marked and graded patterns to outside
domestic customers, thus a survey was not conducted. The subject
firm did not import electronically marked and graded patterns
into the United States during the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner refers to
the events which have occurred at the subject facility since
1998.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time
period (one year prior to the date of the petition). Events
occurring prior to February 19, 2007 are outside of the relevant
time period and thus cannot be considered in this investigation.
The petitioner also alleges that the statement in the
initial investigation “… the patterns were used exclusively in
China…” is erroneous and that some patterns were manufactured for
a domestic market. To support this allegation, the petitioner
provided the name of a domestic retail company, which allegedly
purchased products from the subject firm in the relevant time
period.
The Department contacted a company official to address these
allegations. The company official stated that G-III Apparel
Group, Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns Team, New York,
New York does not sell any electronically marked and graded
patterns to the retailers or any other companies. All patterns
are the property of the subject firm and are used in the in-house
factories to create dresses. The company official also clarified
that the customer mentioned by the petitioner is a retailer who
buys dresses from the subject firm and not electronically marked
and graded patterns.
The petitioner stated that jobs were shifted from the
subject facility to China.
The investigation confirmed that production of
electronically marked and graded patterns indeed was shifted to
China. However, the investigation also revealed that the subject
firm did not import electronically marked and graded patterns
from China back into the United States during the relevant
period.
The petitioner further stated that workers of the subject
firm were previously employed at other companies, which were
certified for TAA.
The two companies indicated by the petitioner were certified
eligible for TAA in August 2001 and April 2007 since the
companies increased imports of samples of dresses, and wedding
and bridesmaid gowns. The certifications of these companies are
not relevant to this investigation.
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 29th day of May, 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-62,964
G-III APPAREL GROUP
STARLO DRESSES DIVISION, COMPUTER PATTERNS TEAM
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 group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted 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 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
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 March 6, 2008 in response
to a petition filed by company officials on behalf of workers of G-
III Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns Team,
New York, New York. Workers were engaged computer-aided pattern
marking and grading.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.C) were not met.
The investigation revealed that marked and graded patterns
electronically transmitted by the subject firm to its affiliated
facilities in China are used to create patterns to cut and sew
apparel by the Chinese facilities. The electronically marked and
graded patterns are used exclusively in China and are not marketed
domestically, imported by the subject firm, or sold outside the
company.
Additionally, the workers described above do not support a
firm or appropriate subdivision that produces an article
domestically and thus cannot be considered import impacted or
affected by an increase in imports of like or directly competitive
articles.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein also 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 G-III
Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division, 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
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 24th day of March 2008
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-62,964
G-III APPAREL GROUP
STARLO DRESSES DIVISION, COMPUTER PATTERNS TEAM
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 22, 2008, petitioners 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 March 24, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2008 (73 FR
19900).
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination signed on March 24, 2008 was based on the finding
that imports of electronically marked and graded patterns did not
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant
and there was no shift of production to a country that is a party
to a free trade agreement with the United States or a beneficiary
country. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
domestic customers. In this instance, the subject firm did not
sell electronically marked and graded patterns to outside
domestic customers, thus a survey was not conducted. The subject
firm did not import electronically marked and graded patterns
into the United States during the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner refers to
the events which have occurred at the subject facility since
1998.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time
period (one year prior to the date of the petition). Events
occurring prior to February 19, 2007 are outside of the relevant
time period and thus cannot be considered in this investigation.
The petitioner also alleges that the statement in the
initial investigation “… the patterns were used exclusively in
China…” is erroneous and that some patterns were manufactured for
a domestic market. To support this allegation, the petitioner
provided the name of a domestic retail company, which allegedly
purchased products from the subject firm in the relevant time
period.
The Department contacted a company official to address these
allegations. The company official stated that G-III Apparel
Group, Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns Team, New York,
New York does not sell any electronically marked and graded
patterns to the retailers or any other companies. All patterns
are the property of the subject firm and are used in the in-house
factories to create dresses. The company official also clarified
that the customer mentioned by the petitioner is a retailer who
buys dresses from the subject firm and not electronically marked
and graded patterns.
The petitioner stated that jobs were shifted from the
subject facility to China.
The investigation confirmed that production of
electronically marked and graded patterns indeed was shifted to
China. However, the investigation also revealed that the subject
firm did not import electronically marked and graded patterns
from China back into the United States during the relevant
period.
The petitioner further stated that workers of the subject
firm were previously employed at other companies, which were
certified for TAA.
The two companies indicated by the petitioner were certified
eligible for TAA in August 2001 and April 2007 since the
companies increased imports of samples of dresses, and wedding
and bridesmaid gowns. The certifications of these companies are
not relevant to this investigation.
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 29th day of May, 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-62,964
G-III APPAREL GROUP
STARLO DRESSES DIVISION, COMPUTER PATTERNS TEAM
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 group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted 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 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
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 March 6, 2008 in response
to a petition filed by company officials on behalf of workers of G-
III Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns Team,
New York, New York. Workers were engaged computer-aided pattern
marking and grading.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.C) were not met.
The investigation revealed that marked and graded patterns
electronically transmitted by the subject firm to its affiliated
facilities in China are used to create patterns to cut and sew
apparel by the Chinese facilities. The electronically marked and
graded patterns are used exclusively in China and are not marketed
domestically, imported by the subject firm, or sold outside the
company.
Additionally, the workers described above do not support a
firm or appropriate subdivision that produces an article
domestically and thus cannot be considered import impacted or
affected by an increase in imports of like or directly competitive
articles.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein also 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 G-III
Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division, 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
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 24th day of March 2008
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -