DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,562

GLEASON CLAY COMPANY LLC
GLEASON, TENNESSEE

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), 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 TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated on September 29, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on November 7, 2014,
that was based on the Department’s finding of no increased imports
and no shift in production to a foreign country. The determination
was applicable to workers and former workers of Unimin Corporation,
Gleason, Tennessee. The workers produced clay used in the
production of ceramic formed to make sanitary ware (fixtures
commonly found in bathrooms (such as sinks, toilets, and urinals).
The petition, dated September 27, 2014, stated that “the
operation at Gleason was crippled as a result” of sanitary ware
production shifting to Mexico and Asia. The petition included a
memorandum (dated September 8, 2014) from Unimin Corporation which
stated “Unimin has sold its Gleason, Tennessee ball clay plant to a
newly formed company called Gleason Clay Company LLC . . . The
Gleason plant sells plastic clays primarily to manufactures of
tiles and sanitaryware . . . most sanitaryware producers in the
U.S. have closed as the production of sanitaryware moved to Mexico
and Asia.” The petitioners were separated on August 29, 2014.
On May 29, 2015, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration. The
request for regulatory reconsideration asserted that worker
separations are due to the “loss of business due to sanitary ware
being produced overseas cheaper than domestic manufacturers” and
that because processed clay is the raw material for the ceramic
used in the production of sanitary ware, increased imports of
sanitaryware made from ceramic which is produced using foreign-
sourced processed clay contributed importantly to worker
separations at Unimin Corporation.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor has determined that the
correct worker group is the workers of Gleason Clay Company LLC,
Gleason, Tennessee (Gleason Clay Company) and is issuing a
determination which reflects the proper identification of the
subject worker group. The Department determines that the
requirements for certification have not been met.
29 CFR 90.2 (Definitions) states:
“Group means three or more workers in a firm or appropriate
subdivision thereof”;
“Lay off means a suspension from pay status for lack of work
initiated by the employer and expected to last for no less
than seven (7) consecutive calendar days”; and
“Like or directly competitive means that like articles are
those which are substantially identical in inherent or
intrinsic characteristics (i.e., materials from which the
articles are made, appearance, quality, texture, etc.); and
directly competitive articles are those which, although not
substantially identical in their inherent or intrinsic
characteristics, are substantially equivalent for commercial
purposes (i.e., adapted to the same uses and essentially
interchangeable therefor).”
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that with respect
to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act, Criterion (1) has
not been met because fewer than three workers were separated from
Gleason Clay Company. Of the workers who did not transition to
Gleason Clay Company following the sale of the Gleason facility,
one worker was a retiree from Unimin Corporation, one worker
declined employment at Gleason Clay Company, and one worker was
laid-off due to redundancy of function within Gleason Clay Company.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports of processed clay, or
like or directly competitive articles, during the twelve month
period prior to the petition date. Sanitaryware is neither like
nor directly competitive with processed clay.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of processed clay, or a like or directly competitive
article, to a foreign country or acquire such from a foreign
country. Rather, Gleason Clay Company continued to produce clay
following the sale of the Gleason facility.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Gleason Clay Company is not a
Supplier or 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 either because Criterion
(1) has not been met since the workers’ firm has not been publicly
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 worker group eligibility of
Gleason Clay Company LLC, Gleason, Tennessee, to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of March, 2016

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




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,562

UNIMIN CORPORATION
GLEASON, TENNESSEE

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated December 3, 2014, a worker
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and
former workers of Unimin Corporation, Gleason, Tennessee
(subject firm). The determination was issued on November
7, 2014. The Department’s Notice of Determination was
published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2014
(79 FR 69535).
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
misinterpretation 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 increase imports or shift production abroad.

The request for reconsideration asserts that increased
imports of articles directly competitive with the “slurry”
articles produced at the subject firm contributed to worker
separations and, consequently, that the Department’s initial
investigation was too limited in scope.

The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the
request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has
determined that the Department will conduct further investigation
to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of
the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of
the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application
is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 29th day of May, 2015

/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-85,562

UNIMIN CORPRORATION
GLEASON, TENNESSEE

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 Andean Trade Preference Act, 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 September 29, 2014 on behalf of workers of Unimin
Corporation, Gleason, Tennessee. The workers' firm is engaged
in activities related to the production of processed clay used
to produce sanitaryware.
The petitioners alleged that sanitaryware producers have
moved their manufacturing to Mexico and Asia, resulting in
worker separations.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of processed clay to a foreign country during the
relevant period of 2012 and 2013 or during January through
August 2014.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of processed clay have not
increased during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Unimin Corporation, Gleason,
Tennessee is not a Supplier or 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).
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. 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 Unimin
Corporation, Gleason, Tennessee engaged in activities related
to the production of processed clay 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 November, 2014

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