DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-63,533

THOMASVILLE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.
UPHOLSTERY PLANT 9
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated July 17, 2008, a company official
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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on July 2, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2008 (73 FR 42371).
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, which was filed on behalf of workers at
Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc., Upholstery Plant 9,
Hickory, North Carolina engaged in the production of upholstered
furniture, was denied based on the findings that sales and
production of upholstered furniture at the subject firm did not
decrease from 2006 to 2007, and during the period of January
through May 2008 when compared to the same period in 2007.
Furthermore, there was no shift in production from the subject
firm to a foreign country during the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated
that in order to reveal the negative trend in sales and
production, the Department should investigate the time period
prior to 2006 and compare current data with 2005. To support his
allegation, the petitioner attached financial information for
sister plants from 2004, 2005 and 2006. The information was
submitted to the Department in previous investigations, which led
to certifications of those facilities. The petitioner seems to
allege that because those facilities were previously certified
eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject firm should be also
eligible for TAA.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers employment, production and sales during the
relevant time period (one year prior to the date of the
petition). Therefore, events occurring in 2005 are outside of
the relevant time period and are not relevant in this
investigation.
Should conditions change in the future, the company is
encouraged to file a new petition on behalf of the worker group
which will encompass an investigative period that will include
any changing conditions.
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 at Washington, D.C., this 31st day of July, 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-63,533

THOMASVILLE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.
UPHOLSTERY PLANT 9
HICKORY, NORTH 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 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 June 13, 2008, in response
to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of
Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc., Upholstery Plant 9,
Thomasville, North Carolina. Workers at the subject firm
manufacture upholstered furniture.
Workers at the subject firm were previously certified for
trade adjustment assistance under petition, TA-W-59,277A, which
expired on May 26, 2008.
The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B.) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that sales and production of
upholstered furniture at the subject firm increased from 2006 to
2007, and during the period of January through May 2008 when
compared to the same time period in 2007.
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 Thomasville
Furniture Industries, Inc., Upholstery Plant 9, Thomasville, 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 2nd day of July 2008.

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





- 4 -