DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,072

MAXON FURNITURE INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM SELECT STAFFING
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c)
or (f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f).
For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the
following three criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers' firm
must have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers' firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers' firm was
directly incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers' firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article
into which the component part produced by the
workers' firm was directly incorporated have
increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or
supply of services like or directly competitive with
those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers' firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers' firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports
or shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to
the workers' separation or threat of separation. See
Sections 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act,
19 U.S.C. §§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer." For the Department
to issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a
Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;

(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to
the workers' separation or threat of separation.

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 19, 2009 by three workers on behalf of workers of
Maxon Furniture Inc., Salisbury, North Carolina. The workers
are engaged in the production of office cubicles and systems
furniture. The subject firm includes on-site leased workers
from Select Staffing.
The petitioner's allegations stated that some of the
products that were made at Maxon Furniture Inc., Salisbury,
North Carolina, were made by an affiliated company in China and
shipped back to the U.S.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the
investigation revealed Criterion II has not been met because
there was no increase in imports or a significant
shift/acquisition by the subject firm of articles like or
directly competitive with the produced by Maxon Furniture Inc.,
Salisbury, North Carolina. In respect to the petitioner's
allegation the investigation revealed that the shift in
production represented only a negligible portion of Maxon's
total production and therefore the shift in production did not
contribute importantly to the layoffs during the relevant
period.
In addition, the Department of Labor surveyed the subject
firm's major declining customers regarding purchases of office
cubicles and systems furniture assemblies in 2007, 2008 and
January through April 2008 and January through April 2009. The
survey revealed none of the customers increased their imports of
office cubicles and systems furniture, while reducing their
purchases from the subject firm during the relevant period. The
survey also revealed that customers imports were negligible
during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the workers of Maxon Furniture Inc.,
Salisbury, North Carolina did not meet the criteria for
certification as secondarily affected workers.
Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers did not
produce a component part that was used in the production of an
article by a firm with TAA-certified workers.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers' firm has not been identified in an
affirmative finding of injury by the International Trade
Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Maxon Furniture Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Select Staffing,
Salisbury, North Carolina, who are engaged in activities
related to the production of office cubicles and systems
furniture are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 20th day of November 2009.


/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance