DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,829

SCHNADIG CORPORATION
BELMONT, MISSISSIPPI

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated November 11, 2009, a petitioner
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
October 21, 2009 and will soon be published in the Federal
Register.
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 filed on behalf of workers at Schnadig
Corporation, Belmont, Mississippi was based on the finding that
imports of services like or directly competitive with services
provided by workers of the subject firm did not contribute to
worker separations at the subject firm during the relevant
period. The investigation revealed that workers of the subject
firm were engaged in distribution and warehousing services of
furniture. The subject firm did not import nor acquire services
from a foreign country and also did not shift the provision of
these services to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated
that workers of the subject firm were previously certified
eligible for TAA based on increased imports of upholstered
residential furniture.
The workers of Schnadig Corporation, Belmont Mississippi
were previously certified eligible for TAA under petition number
TA-W-60,5765, which expired on January 5, 2009. The investigation
revealed that at that time workers of the subject firm were
engaged in production of upholstered residential furniture and
the employment declines at the subject facility were attributed
to the subject firm’s increase in imports of furniture.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers worker activities during the relevant
period (from one year prior to the date of the petition).
Therefore, events occurring in 2007 are outside of the relevant
period and are not considered in this investigation.
The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm
were engaged in distribution and warehousing services during the
relevant period. These functions, as described above, were not
imported, or shifted abroad nor were the service acquired from a
foreign country during the relevant period. Therefore, criteria
II.A. and II.B. of Section 222(a) of the Act were not met.
Furthermore, with the respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that criterion 2 was not met because the
workers did not supply a service that was used by a firm with
TAA-certified workers in the production of an article or supply
of a service that was a basis for TAA certification.
The petitioner also stated that Schnadig Corporation,
Belmont, Mississippi was purchased by another company, which
shifted all operations from the subject firm to a facility in
Greensboro, North Carolina.
The information regarding a shift in services from the
subject facility to another location in the United States was
revealed during the initial investigation. However, the criteria
regarding the shift in services specifically states that the
services have to be shifted to a foreign country. Therefore, a
mere shift in services to another domestic facility does not
preclude workers’ eligibility for TAA.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
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 10th day of December, 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-70,829

SCHNADIG CORPORATION
BELMONT, MISSISSIPPI

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.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a worker
petition filed on June 1, 2009 on behalf of workers of Schnadig
Corporation, Belmont, Mississippi. The workers were engaged in
distribution and warehousing services for furniture produced,
mainly at locations abroad, by unaffiliated firms.
The petitioners allege that they were affected by subject
firm imports of furniture.
The Department of Labor obtained information from the
subject firm regarding employment and operations to conclude the
investigation.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion II has not been met because there was no
increase in imports by the workers’ firm of services like those
performed by the worker group nor was there a shift/acquisition
of the workers’ services abroad.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers
did not produce an article or supply a service that was used by a
firm with TAA certified workers in the production of an article
on supply of a service that was the basis for TAA certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been met because
the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the ITC.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Schnadig Corporation,
Belmont, Mississippi 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 21st day of October, 2009


/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 9 -