DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,579

CONSOLIDATED GLASS AND MIRROR CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
GALAX, VIRGINIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On September 21, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Consolidated Glass and Mirror
Corporation, a Subsidiary of Guardian Industries Corporation,
Galax, Virginia (subject firm). The Notice was published in the
Federal Register on September 29, 2010 (75 FR 60139). Workers are
engaged in employment related to the production of mirrored and/or
laminated glass articles used in furniture, automotives and
architecture.
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that the subject firm did not, during the
period under investigation, shift to/acquire from a foreign country
the production of articles like or directly competitive with the
mirrored and/or laminated glass products manufactured by the
workers; that increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the mirrored and/or laminated glass products
manufactured by the workers did not contribute importantly to the
workers’ separation, or threat of separation; and that the workers
did not produce a component part that was directly used in the
production of an article or the supply of service by a firm that
employed a worker group that is eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) based on the aforementioned article.
The request for reconsideration, filed by former workers of
the subject firm, stated that the Galax, Virginia facility is owned
by “Guardian Industries, a company that has plants all over the
world” and identified customers with worker groups eligible to
apply for TAA (“Pulaski Furniture certified 1/17/07, Woodmaster
certified 5/19/06, Ridgeway Furniture certified 11/6/07, Hooker
Furniture certified 10/5/06, American Pride certified 8/25/09 and
Stanley Furniture 5/5/10”). The workers also supplied an article,
dated February 24, 2010, that stated “Guardian is a diversified
global manufacturing company . . . Guardian . . . operates
facilities throughout North America, Europe, South America, Asia,
Africa, and the Middle East.”
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
obtained from the subject firm additional information related to
those customers identified in the request for reconsideration
that both employed workers groups eligible to apply for TAA and
conducted business with the subject firm during the relevant
period.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did
not shift to/acquire from a foreign country import articles like or
directly competitive with mirrored and/or laminated glass products
manufactured by the subject workers. Further, the subject firm
confirmed that, on a firm-wide basis, they do not import articles
like or directly competitive with mirrored/laminated glass products
nor did the subject firm import articles directly incorporating
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or
more component parts produced by the subject firm.
While the subject firm may have produced and supplied a
component part used by a firm that both employed a worker group
that is currently eligible to apply for TAA and directly
incorporated the glass products in the production of that article
that was the basis for the TAA certification, information obtained
during the reconsideration investigation revealed that the customer
accounted for an insignificant percentage of the subject firm
sales. Therefore, the Department confirms that the subject workers
are not adversely affected secondary workers.
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
Consolidated Glass and Mirror Corporation, a Subsidiary of Guardian
Industries Corporation, Galax, Virginia.
Signed in Washington, D.C., on this 29th day of March, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,579

CONSOLIDATED GLASS AND MIRROR CORP.
A SUBSIDIARY OF GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORP.
GALAX, VIRGINIA

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 petition
filed on February 26, 2010 by a company official on behalf of the
workers of Consolidated Glass and Mirror Corp., a subsidiary of
Guardian Industries Corp., Galax, Virginia (Consolidated Glass and
Mirror Corp.). The workers are engaged in activities related to
the production of mirrored and laminated glass. The workers are
not separately identifiable by product.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion II has not been met. The subject firm
did not import products like or directly competitive with the
products produced at the subject firm during 2008, 2009, and
January through February 2010, nor shift production of these
products abroad during the same period.
The Department surveyed the subject firm’s major declining
customers regarding purchases of products like or directly
competitive with mirrored and laminated glass during 2007, 2008,
January through February 2009 and January through February 2010.
The survey revealed that there were no imports of products like
or directly competitive with mirrored and laminated glass during
the relevant period.
Furthermore, the Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm’s major lost bid of mirrored and laminated glass
during the last two years. The survey revealed that the customer
did not lose a bid to a foreign source.
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 or
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 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 Consolidated Glass and
Mirror Corp., a subsidiary of Guardian Industries Corp., Galax,
Virginia, who were engaged in activities related to the
production of mirrored and laminated glass 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 5th day of August, 2010

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







- 9 -