Dana Undies, Colquitt, GA; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 56739-56740 [E5-5293]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–57,716] DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses NC, Greensboro, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 11, 2005 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses NC, Greensboro, North Carolina. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of August, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–5294 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–55,395B] Dana Undies, Colquitt, GA; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand On June 13, 2005, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s motion for voluntary remand in Former Employees of Dana Undies v. U.S. Department of Labor (Court No. 04– 00615). A petition, dated August 5, 2004, for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) was filed on behalf of workers and former workers of Dana Undies facilities in Colquitt, Georgia; Blakely, Georgia; and Arlington, Georgia. The investigation revealed that the workers of the Blakely and Arlington facilities were adversely affected by imports of infant’s, toddler’s, boy’s and girl’s underwear, and consequently the workers of the Blakely and Arlington facilities were certified as eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA on September 14, 2004 (TA–W–55,395 and TA–W–55,395A). In the case of the Colquitt facility, the investigation revealed that all of the workers were separated more than one year prior to the date of the petition. Section 223(b)(1) of the Act specifies that no certification may apply to any worker whose last separation occurred VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:02 Sep 27, 2005 Jkt 205001 more than one year before the date of the petition. Therefore, the September 14, 2004 notice included a negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA for the Colquitt facility (TA–W–55,395B). The Department’s notice of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA for the above facilities was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2004 (69 FR 57089). By letter dated October 7, 2004, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration, stating that: ‘‘In January 2003, February 2003, July 2003, and September 2003 myself (Alice DeBruyn) and Ethel Haire told employees of the Georgia Department of Labor in Bainbridge, Georgia that the Colquitt plant had been closed due to work going out of the country, due to imports’’ and that ‘‘the last pay date for the Colquitt Plant was January 3, 2003.’’ By letter dated October 28, 2004, the petitioner’s request for reconsideration was dismissed based on the finding that no new facts of a substantive nature which would bear importantly on the Department’s determination had been provided by the petitioner. On November 4, 2004, the Department’s Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration was issued. The Department’s Notice of Dismissal was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2004 (69 FR 65457). On October 8, 2004, the petitioner filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of International Trade (‘‘USCIT’’). In the amended complaint filed March 10, 2005, the petitioner suggested that the Georgia Department of Labor, acting as agent of the United States in the administration of the TAA program, advised the employees of the Colquitt plant, during the year following their termination, that they could not file a petition for TAA and, thus, prevented the employees from filing a petition during the statutorily required period. In its June 13, 2005 Order, the USCIT granted the Department’s motion for a voluntary remand to determine whether the petitioners are eligible for certification for worker adjustment assistance benefits. During the remand investigation, the Department received an affidavit of the petitioner’s allegations and contacted numerous officials of the Georgia Department of Labor to determine whether the petitioners were indeed prevented or discouraged from filing a petition during the statutory period. The remand investigation revealed that, although no officials of the Georgia Department of Labor recalled refusing to allow any worker to submit a petition for TAA group certification, at least PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 56739 some of them were under the impression that the jobs of the Colquitt plant had been transferred domestically to the Blakely plant. This understanding was, apparently, based on a conversation between a Georgia Department Labor official and a Dana Undies Company official (whose name could not be recalled). Moreover, in the course of the remand investigation, the petitioner submitted an affidavit which states that, during the statutory period, she and other separated employees were told by Georgia Department of Labor officials that the Blakely plant was still in operation and thus the Colquitt terminations were not due to imports but from lack of work and thus no petition could be filed. Based on the above, it seems likely that, at a minimum, through a series of miscommunications both between the Dana Undies Company and the Georgia Department of Labor, and between the Georgia Department of Labor and the affected employees of the Colquitt plant, the Colquitt employees were led to believe they would not be eligible for TAA benefits. This generally coincides with the allegations in the plaintiff’s affidavit, which states that the plaintiff sought to apply for TAA benefits during the statutory period. Therefore, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to investigate the workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade Act benefits. Moreover, since the petitioners are seeking certification for eligibility to apply for ATAA, the Department will assume that the plaintiff intended to submit a petition at the earliest time they could apply for ATAA. The ATAA program went into affect on August 6, 2003, so the Department will consider the petition submitted on that date. In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 of the Trade Act must be met. It is determined in this case that the requirements of (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 have been met. The subject firm separated a significant number of workers, and shifted production of infant and toddler underwear from the Colquitt facility to China and Thailand. Company imports of infant and toddler underwear were likely to increase at the time of the Colquitt plant’s closure, and did increase soon thereafter. Moreover, the investigation revealed that all criteria regarding ATAA for the subject worker group have been met. A significant number or proportion of the worker group are age fifty years or over, E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM 28SEN1 56740 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Notices the workers possess skills that are not easily transferable, and competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that there was a shift in production of infant and toddler underwear from the workers’ firm or subdivision to China and Thailand of articles that are like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of September, 2005. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–5303 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] ‘‘All workers of Dana Undies, Colquitt, Georgia (TA–W–55,395B) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 6, 2002 through two years from the date of certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’ Eagle Ottawa, LLC, Rochester Hill, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of September, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–5293 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–57,662] Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 3, 2005 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Eagle Ottawa, LLC, Rochester Hill, Michigan. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of September, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–5297 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Del Laboratories, Little Falls, NY and Union Dale, NY; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 31, 2005 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at two locations of Del Laboratories, Little Falls, New York, and Union Dale, New York. Two locations affected comprise two distinct worker groups. According to the Trade Act of 1974, a valid petition filed by workers must consist of three petitioning workers for a particular worker group. Neither of the two worker groups petitioned with at least three workers. Therefore, the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–57,845] Eaton Corporation, Saginaw, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 26, 2005 in response to a petition filed the PACE International Union, Local 6– 433 on behalf of workers of Eaton Corporation, Saginaw, Michigan. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of September, 2005. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–5302 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:02 Sep 27, 2005 Jkt 205001 Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–57,399] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P BILLING CODE 4510–30–P [TA–W–57,871 and TA–W–57,871A] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Electrolux Home Products, Referigeration Division, Including OnSite Leased Workers Of Aerotek, JBL Resources, Casari, Inc., K Force Incorporated, Manpower, Select Resources, Securitas Services and Canteen Services, Greenville, Michigan; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on July 15, 2005, applicable to workers of Electrolux Home Products, Refrigeration Division, Greenville, Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50410). At the request of a company official of Electrolux, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce refrigerators. The review shows that the subject firm leased workers on-site from Aerotek, JBL Resources, Casari, Inc., K Force Incorporated, Manpower, Select Resources, Securitas Services and Canteen Services. In order to include all workers affected by a shift of production to Mexico, the Department is amending the current certification to include workers of the above named firms employed at the Greenville, Michigan site of Electrolux Home Products, Refrigeration Division. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–57,409 is hereby issued as follows: ‘‘All workers of Electrolux Home Products, Refrigeration Division, Greenville, Michigan, including on-site leased workers of Aerotek, JBL Resources, Casari, Inc., K Force Incorporated, Manpower, Select Resources, Securitas Services and Canteen Services who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 17, 2004 through July 15, 2007 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’ E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM 28SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56739-56740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5293]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-55,395B]


Dana Undies, Colquitt, GA; Notice of Revised Determination on 
Remand

    On June 13, 2005, the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's motion for voluntary remand 
in Former Employees of Dana Undies v. U.S. Department of Labor (Court 
No. 04-00615).
    A petition, dated August 5, 2004, for Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) was filed on 
behalf of workers and former workers of Dana Undies facilities in 
Colquitt, Georgia; Blakely, Georgia; and Arlington, Georgia. The 
investigation revealed that the workers of the Blakely and Arlington 
facilities were adversely affected by imports of infant's, toddler's, 
boy's and girl's underwear, and consequently the workers of the Blakely 
and Arlington facilities were certified as eligible to apply for TAA 
and ATAA on September 14, 2004 (TA-W-55,395 and TA-W-55,395A).
    In the case of the Colquitt facility, the investigation revealed 
that all of the workers were separated more than one year prior to the 
date of the petition. Section 223(b)(1) of the Act specifies that no 
certification may apply to any worker whose last separation occurred 
more than one year before the date of the petition. Therefore, the 
September 14, 2004 notice included a negative determination regarding 
eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA for the Colquitt facility (TA-W-
55,395B). The Department's notice of determinations regarding 
eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA for the above facilities was 
published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2004 (69 FR 57089).
    By letter dated October 7, 2004, the petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration, stating that: ``In January 2003, 
February 2003, July 2003, and September 2003 myself (Alice DeBruyn) and 
Ethel Haire told employees of the Georgia Department of Labor in 
Bainbridge, Georgia that the Colquitt plant had been closed due to work 
going out of the country, due to imports'' and that ``the last pay date 
for the Colquitt Plant was January 3, 2003.''
    By letter dated October 28, 2004, the petitioner's request for 
reconsideration was dismissed based on the finding that no new facts of 
a substantive nature which would bear importantly on the Department's 
determination had been provided by the petitioner. On November 4, 2004, 
the Department's Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration was 
issued. The Department's Notice of Dismissal was published in the 
Federal Register on November 12, 2004 (69 FR 65457).
    On October 8, 2004, the petitioner filed an appeal with the U.S. 
Court of International Trade (``USCIT''). In the amended complaint 
filed March 10, 2005, the petitioner suggested that the Georgia 
Department of Labor, acting as agent of the United States in the 
administration of the TAA program, advised the employees of the 
Colquitt plant, during the year following their termination, that they 
could not file a petition for TAA and, thus, prevented the employees 
from filing a petition during the statutorily required period.
    In its June 13, 2005 Order, the USCIT granted the Department's 
motion for a voluntary remand to determine whether the petitioners are 
eligible for certification for worker adjustment assistance benefits.
    During the remand investigation, the Department received an 
affidavit of the petitioner's allegations and contacted numerous 
officials of the Georgia Department of Labor to determine whether the 
petitioners were indeed prevented or discouraged from filing a petition 
during the statutory period.
    The remand investigation revealed that, although no officials of 
the Georgia Department of Labor recalled refusing to allow any worker 
to submit a petition for TAA group certification, at least some of them 
were under the impression that the jobs of the Colquitt plant had been 
transferred domestically to the Blakely plant. This understanding was, 
apparently, based on a conversation between a Georgia Department Labor 
official and a Dana Undies Company official (whose name could not be 
recalled).
    Moreover, in the course of the remand investigation, the petitioner 
submitted an affidavit which states that, during the statutory period, 
she and other separated employees were told by Georgia Department of 
Labor officials that the Blakely plant was still in operation and thus 
the Colquitt terminations were not due to imports but from lack of work 
and thus no petition could be filed.
    Based on the above, it seems likely that, at a minimum, through a 
series of miscommunications both between the Dana Undies Company and 
the Georgia Department of Labor, and between the Georgia Department of 
Labor and the affected employees of the Colquitt plant, the Colquitt 
employees were led to believe they would not be eligible for TAA 
benefits. This generally coincides with the allegations in the 
plaintiff's affidavit, which states that the plaintiff sought to apply 
for TAA benefits during the statutory period.
    Therefore, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to 
investigate the workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Act benefits. 
Moreover, since the petitioners are seeking certification for 
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the Department will assume that the 
plaintiff intended to submit a petition at the earliest time they could 
apply for ATAA. The ATAA program went into affect on August 6, 2003, so 
the Department will consider the petition submitted on that date.
    In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a 
certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility 
requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 
of the Trade Act must be met. It is determined in this case that the 
requirements of (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 have been met. The subject 
firm separated a significant number of workers, and shifted production 
of infant and toddler underwear from the Colquitt facility to China and 
Thailand. Company imports of infant and toddler underwear were likely 
to increase at the time of the Colquitt plant's closure, and did 
increase soon thereafter.
    Moreover, the investigation revealed that all criteria regarding 
ATAA for the subject worker group have been met. A significant number 
or proportion of the worker group are age fifty years or over,

[[Page 56740]]

the workers possess skills that are not easily transferable, and 
competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
    After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I 
determine that there was a shift in production of infant and toddler 
underwear from the workers' firm or subdivision to China and Thailand 
of articles that are like or directly competitive with those produced 
by the subject firm or subdivision. In accordance with the provisions 
of the Act, I make the following certification:

    ``All workers of Dana Undies, Colquitt, Georgia (TA-W-55,395B) 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after August 6, 2002 through two years from the date of 
certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply 
for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of September, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-5293 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P