Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 04/23/2008
Most Recent Update: 05/29/2008
Determination Date: 05/29/2008
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-63,235
SOUTHPRINT, INC.
REIDSVILLE DIVISION
REIDSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On July 31, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2008 (73 FR
46037).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination based on the finding that imports of screen-
printing for apparel did not contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a
foreign source occurred.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner alleged
that business at the subject firm declined because the subject
firm’s customers shifted screen-printing for apparel to foreign
facilities. The petitioner provided an additional list of
customers and alleged that these customers are importing screen-
printing for apparel.
On reconsideration the Department of Labor surveyed these
declining customers regarding their purchases of products like or
directly competitive with screen-printing for apparel during 2006,
2007 and January through March, 2008 over the corresponding 2007
period. The survey revealed that the customers did not import
products like or directly competitive with screen-printing for
apparel during the relevant period.
The fact that the subject firm’s customers are shifting
their production abroad is not relevant to this investigation.
According to section (a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act, in order to be
eligible for TAA on the basis of a shift in production abroad,
the shift in production must be implemented by the subject firm
or its subdivision.
In this case, the subject firm did not import screen-printing
for apparel nor was there a shift in production from subject firm
abroad during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of
Southprint, Inc., Reidsville Division, Reidsville, North
Carolina.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of August, 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-63,235
SOUTHPRINT, INC.
REIDSVILLE DIVISION
REIDSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
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 April 23, 2008 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of SouthPrint, Inc.,
Reidsville Division, Reidsville, North Carolina. Workers of the
subject facility produced screen-printing for apparel.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not import screen-printing in 2007 or in
January through March 2008, nor did it shift production to a
foreign country in those periods.
Separations at the Reidsville facility are due to a shift of
production to another domestic facility. Corporate-wide sales and
production are increasing and there are no significant declining
customers.
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 SouthPrint, Inc.,
Reidsville Division, Reidsville, North Carolina, 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 29th day of May 2008
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 5 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-63,235
SOUTHPRINT, INC.
REIDSVILLE DIVISION
REIDSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On July 31, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2008 (73 FR
46037).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination based on the finding that imports of screen-
printing for apparel did not contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a
foreign source occurred.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner alleged
that business at the subject firm declined because the subject
firm’s customers shifted screen-printing for apparel to foreign
facilities. The petitioner provided an additional list of
customers and alleged that these customers are importing screen-
printing for apparel.
On reconsideration the Department of Labor surveyed these
declining customers regarding their purchases of products like or
directly competitive with screen-printing for apparel during 2006,
2007 and January through March, 2008 over the corresponding 2007
period. The survey revealed that the customers did not import
products like or directly competitive with screen-printing for
apparel during the relevant period.
The fact that the subject firm’s customers are shifting
their production abroad is not relevant to this investigation.
According to section (a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act, in order to be
eligible for TAA on the basis of a shift in production abroad,
the shift in production must be implemented by the subject firm
or its subdivision.
In this case, the subject firm did not import screen-printing
for apparel nor was there a shift in production from subject firm
abroad during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of
Southprint, Inc., Reidsville Division, Reidsville, North
Carolina.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of August, 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-63,235
SOUTHPRINT, INC.
REIDSVILLE DIVISION
REIDSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
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 April 23, 2008 in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of SouthPrint, Inc.,
Reidsville Division, Reidsville, North Carolina. Workers of the
subject facility produced screen-printing for apparel.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not import screen-printing in 2007 or in
January through March 2008, nor did it shift production to a
foreign country in those periods.
Separations at the Reidsville facility are due to a shift of
production to another domestic facility. Corporate-wide sales and
production are increasing and there are no significant declining
customers.
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 SouthPrint, Inc.,
Reidsville Division, Reidsville, North Carolina, 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 29th day of May 2008
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 5 -