DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,870

MAIDENFORM
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES ARE REPORTED UNDER
HANESBRANDS, INC.
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

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 March 11, 2015, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on May 26, 2015, that was based
on imports not increasing, the firm not shifting production to a
foreign country and not qualifying as a secondary worker. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
Maidenform, including workers whose wages are reported under
Hanesbrands, Inc., Fayetteville, North Carolina.
The workers’ firm was engaged in activities related to the
receiving and distribution of imported apparel. The location was a
distribution center.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that the
requirements for certification have not been met.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not increase import
services like or directly competitive with the services supplied
by Maidenform.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
distribution services or a like or directly competitive service
to a foreign country or acquire distribution services or like or
directly competitive services from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Maidenform is not a Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Maidenform does not act as 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).
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 group eligibility of Maidenform,
including workers whose wages are reported under Hanesbrands,
Inc., Fayetteville, North Carolina, who were engaged in employment
related to the receiving and distribution of imported apparel to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 26th day of February, 2016

/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,870

MAIDENFORM
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES ARE REPORTED UNDER
HANESBRANDS, INC.
FAYETTEVILLE, 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 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 March 11, 2015 on behalf of workers of Maidenform,
Fayetteville, North Carolina ("worker group" or "subject
firm"). The worker group is inclusive of workers whose wages
are reported under another federal employer identification
number (FEIN) and corporate name, Hanesbrands, Inc. ("firm").
The workers' firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of women's undergarments. The worker group acted in
a distribution capacity, warehousing and distributing foreign-
made women's undergarment products of the firm.
The petitioners alleged that, "Stock has been moved to
another location or out of the country. Some stock still at
Fayetteville DC", which led to the separations or threat
thereof of the worker group.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and petitioners.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of women undergarments to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii), the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by Maidenform
did not contribute importantly to such workers' separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production
of such firm or subdivision.
The investigation revealed that Maidenform is a 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 Maidenform,
Fayetteville, including workers whose wages are reported under
Hanesbrands, Inc., North Carolina engaged in activities
related to the production of women's undergarments 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 26th day of May 2015


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