DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-63,422
SPRINGS GLOBAL U.S., INC.
SPRINGS DIRECT DIVISION
SPRINGMAID WAMSUTTA FACTORY STORE
LANCASTER, SOUTH CAROLINA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On February 6, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for
further review Former Employees of Springs Global, Inc., Springs
Global Direct Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store,
Lancaster, South Carolina (FEO Springs Global) v. United States,
Court No. 08-00255.
On May 19, 2008, an official of Springs Global U.S. Inc.
(subject firm) filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on
behalf of workers of Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global
Direct Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster,
South Carolina (subject facility).
The subject facility closed during February 2008. Prior to
the closure, workers at the subject facility managed Springs
Global, U.S., Inc. (subject firm) retail operations, sold linen
products manufactured by the subject firm to the public and other
subject firm employees, and handled special orders for linen
products placed by other subject firm employees.
The negative determination, issued on May 30, 2008, stated
that in order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the
subject worker group 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
determination also stated that although the subject firm produced
an article, the subject workers did not support that production.
The Department determined that the subject worker group cannot be
considered import impacted or affected by a shift in production
of an article. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 34044).
The Department did not receive a request for administrative
reconsideration.
In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that workers at the
subject facility, who “provided the means by which Springs Global
dispensed of manufactured goods that were not able to be sold
otherwise . . . thereby enabling the company’s production
operations . . . to reduce their per-unit overhead and operate
more efficiently,” should be treated like the workers covered by
TA-W-62,768 (Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Division,
Corporate Support Group, Lancaster, South Carolina; certified
February 14, 2008). Workers covered by TA-W-63,422 are located
in the same building as workers covered by TA-W-62,786.
Workers covered by TA-W-62,786 are engaged in production
estimation, production scheduling, distribution, logistics, and
operational services. The determination for TA-W-62,786 stated
that the workers supported production at a TAA-certified facility
(Springs Global U.S., Inc., Grace Complex, Bedding Division,
Lancaster, South Carolina; TA-W-61,258) and that the worker
separations are “related to a shift of production and increased
imports of textile products.”
The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted
workers under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
based on a shift of production are satisfied if the criteria set
forth under Section 222(a)(2)(B) have been met:
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; and
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 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 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.

On remand, the Department carefully reviewed the language of
the statute, the Department’s policy, Plaintiffs’ submissions,
and the administrative record.
The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover
all workers of the subject firm or appropriate subdivision who
were adversely affected by increased imports of the article
produced by the firm or a shift in production of the article,
based on the investigation of the TAA/ATAA petition.
After careful review on remand, the Department determines
that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
appropriate subdivision of the subject firm was separated.
Further, the Department determines that these workers performed
activities related to the firm’s production of an article, that
the firm shifted production of that article to a foreign country
(and there were increased imports of like or directly competitive
articles produced by the firm), and this shift in production was
a factor in Plaintiffs’ separations.
Based on the above, the Department determines that the group
eligibility requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, has been met.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of
its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply
for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the
group eligibility 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 within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts during the remand
investigation, I determine that there was a shift of production
from the workers’ firm or subdivision to Brazil of articles that
are like or directly competitive with those produced by the
subject firm or subdivision, and there has been or is likely to
be an increase in imports of like or directly competitive
articles. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make
the following certification:









"All workers of Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global
Direct Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store,
Lancaster, South Carolina, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after May 19,
2007, through two years from the issuance of this revised
determination, are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are eligible to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of February 2009.

/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-63,422
SPRINGS GLOBAL U.S., INC.
SPRINGS DIRECT DIVISION
SPRINGMAID WAMSUTTA FACTORY STORE
LANCASTER, SOUTH CAROLINA

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 May 21, 2008, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Springs Global U.S.
Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, Springmaid Wamsutta Factory
Store. The workers performed management of retail operations,
sales to current Springs Global U.S. Inc. employees, walk-in
customers, and handled any special orders requested by company
employees.
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 retail factory outlet
store 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.
While the factory outlet store workers at the Lancaster, South
Carolina location were on the same grounds as the production
facility they did not participate in production. The workers did
not add any value to the production process. The duty of the
employees at this location was to sell the products that had been
produced by Springs Global U.S. Inc., which were received from
multiple locations.
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 Springs Global U.S.
Inc., Springs Direct Division, Springmaid Wamsutta Factory Store,
Lancaster, South 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 30th day of May 2008

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








- 7 -