DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,390

HANCOCK AND MOORE, INC.
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated on August 25, 2011,
resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that the
subject firm did not experience declines in sales or production or
shift production to a foreign country in the period under
investigation. The determination, issued on September 7, 2011, was
applicable to workers and former workers of Hancock and Moore,
Inc., Hickory, North Carolina. The notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2011 (76 FR
59169). The worker group includes leased workers from Express
Service, Inc. and Catawba Valley Staffing.
On October 3, 2011, a petitioner filed an application for
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination
regarding workers’ eligibility. As required by the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) Extension Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the
investigation into this petition was reopened for a reconsideration
investigation to apply the requirements for worker group
eligibility under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended by the TAAEA, to the facts of this petition.
The information collected during the reconsideration
investigation revealed that the petition covers workers at three
facilities of a firm which produces furniture. The facilities are
located at 166 Hancock and Moore Lane, Hickory, North Carolina; 405
Rink Dam Road, Hickory, North Carolina; and 165 Matheson Park
Avenue, Taylorsville, North Carolina.
29 CFR 90.2 states that an appropriate subdivision of a firm
“includes auxiliary facilities operated in conjunction with
(whether or not physically separate from) production facilities.”
As such, the Department determines that the three afore-mentioned
locations constitute, collectively, the subject firm.
The information also revealed that the subject firm did not
experience significant employment declines in the relevant time
period. As such, workers at the aforementioned facilities do not
meet the criteria for certification.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act,
the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been met
because a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers’ firm, has not become totally or partially separated, nor
are the workers threatened to become totally or partially
separated. 29 CFR 90.2 defines a significant number or proportion
of the workers to mean five percent of the workers in a workforce
of fifty or more workers or at least three workers in a workforce
of fewer workers than fifty workers.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since the workers’ firm
has not been publically identified by name by the International
Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious
injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Hancock and
Moore, Inc., Hickory, North Carolina to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of December, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,390

HANCOCK AND MOORE, INC.
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA

Negative Determinations 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 (“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) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that 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
(2) 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) 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
(ii)(I) 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;
(II)the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)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.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on August 25, 2011 by a company official on behalf of
workers of Hancock and Moore, Inc., Hickory, North Carolina. The
workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the production of
residential and contract furniture.
The petitioner alleges that aggregate U.S. imports
contributed to worker separations at the subject firm. During the
course of the investigation, information was collected from the
workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Hancock and Moore, Inc., Hickory, North
Carolina has not experienced a decline in the sales or production
of residential and contract furniture during the period under
investigation.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of residential and contract furniture to a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Hancock and Moore, Inc., Hickory,
North Carolina is not 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(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 Hancock and Moore,
Inc., Hickory, North Carolina are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 7th day of September, 2011


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






- 7 -