DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,396

SEALY MATTRESS COMPANY
A SUBSIDIARY OF SEALY, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS
PORTLAND, OREGON

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated May 16, 2013, United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union (USW), Local 330, requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of Sealy Mattress Company, a subsidiary of Sealy, Inc.,
Portland, Oregon (subject firm). The Department’s Notice of
Determination was issued on April 15, 2013 and was published in
the Federal Register on May 15, 2013 (78 FR 28630).
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 negative determination of the TAA petition filed on
behalf of workers at the subject firm was based on the
Department’s findings that, during the relevant period, neither
the subject firm nor its customers increased imports of articles
like or directly competitive with mattresses or box springs
produced by the subject firm; the subject firm did not shift
production of mattresses and/or box springs, or like or directly
competitive articles, to a foreign country, and did not acquire
such production from a foreign country; the subject firm is
neither a Supplier nor 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 the subject 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.
The request for reconsideration stated that the workers of
the subject firm should be eligible to apply for TAA because
workers at the subject firm were impacted by foreign competition
of imported mattresses and box springs. The request also asserts
that increased imports should be measured both absolutely and
relative to domestic production, as required by applicable
regulation. The request further states that the subject firm is
a 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).
The request for reconsideration includes a reference to a
blog that reported that imports of mattresses have increased
since 2003, import data that shows that imports of bedding
foundations (which are directly competitive with box springs)
decreased in 2012 from 2011 levels, a list of bedding companies
and sawmills that employed workers who are eligible to apply for
TAA, and references on-line articles regarding Sealy Mattress.
During the review of the application, the Department
carefully reviewed the USW’s request for reconsideration
(including the attachments), the existing record, and the
articles referenced in the application (“Sealy opens first
factory in China”; February 2011; http://bedtimesmagazine.com
and “Sealy Opens New Toronto Facility”; October 15, 2008;
http://furninfo.com).
The request for reconsideration 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. Based on these
findings, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After careful 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 in Washington, D.C., this 7th day of June, 2013

/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-82,396

SEALY MATTRESS COMPANY
A SUBSIDIARY OF SEALY, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS
PORTLAND, OREGON

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), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). 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 criteria must be met:
(1) 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.

(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) (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.
(iii) the increase in imports 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.
(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the
acquisition of articles or services described in
clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission (ITC) as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 January 31, 2013 by the company Official, on behalf of
workers of Sealy Mattress Company, a subsidiary of Sealy, Inc.,
Portland, Oregon (Sealy). The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of mattresses and box
springs. The worker group includes on-site leased workers from
Express Employment Professionals.
The petitioner alleged that increased customer imports
contributed importantly to worker separations.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that that Criterion (2)(A)(ii) has not
been met because imports of articles like or directly
competitive with mattresses and box springs produced by Sealy
did not increase during the relevant period. Surveys conducted
by the Department revealed that, during the relevant period, the
subject firm’s declining customers did not import articles like
or directly competitive with mattresses and box springs produced
by Sealy. CFR 90.2 states that increased imports means that
imports have increased either absolutely or relative to
domestic production compared to a representative base period.
The representative base period shall be one year consisting of
the four-quarters immediately preceding the date which is
twelve months prior to the date of the petition.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, Sealy did
not shift production of mattresses and box springs, or like or
directly competitive articles, to a foreign country, and did not
acquire production of like or directly competitive articles
from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Sealy is neither a Supplier nor
Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since Sealy has not
been publically identified by name by the ITC 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 of the facts obtained in the
investigation, 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 Sealy Mattress
Company, a subsidiary of Sealy, Inc., including on-site leased


workers from Express Employment Professionals, Portland,
Oregon, 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 April, 2013

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance








- 5 -