Petitioner Type: Union
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 05/07/2001
Most Recent Update: 05/08/2001
Determination Date: 05/08/2001
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,188
RHODA LEE, INC.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 12, 2001, the Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, UNITE requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 8, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2001 (66 FR 28553).
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 petition for the workers of Rhoda Lee, Inc., New York, New York was denied because the "contributed importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended; was not met. The denial was based on evidence indicating that markers the impacted worker group produced, were only used when the company contracted out work and the company did not import markers during the relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that Rhoda Lee, Inc. replaced domestic production (apparel) with imports, thus the need for markers decreased resulting in the displacement of the worker(s).
The impacted worker(s) of the subject plant producing markers were separately identifiable from other functions performed at the subject firm and therefore is the group of worker(s) which may be considered for TAA eligibility. The company did not import markers and only purchased markers from other domestic sources during the relevant period.
The imports of any other product (apparel) by the company is not relevant to this petition that was filed on behalf of worker(s) producing markers.
Conclusion
After 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 at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of October 2001.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,188
RHODA LEE, INC.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-418), the Department of Labor herein presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of eligi-bility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met:
(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated,
or are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;
(2) that sales or production, or both, of the firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
(3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
The investigation was initiated on May 7, 2001, in response to a petition filed by the Amalgamated Ladies= Garment Cutters= Union, Local 10, UNITE, on behalf of workers at Rhoda Lee, Inc., New York, New York. Worker(s) were engaged in activities related to the production of markers used in the production of apparel.
This investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the markers produced by the subject plant are the only markers used when the company contracts work out. The company did not import markers during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of Rhoda Lee, Inc., New York, New York, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 8th day of May, 2001.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
____________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,188
RHODA LEE, INC.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 12, 2001, the Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, UNITE requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 8, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2001 (66 FR 28553).
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 petition for the workers of Rhoda Lee, Inc., New York, New York was denied because the "contributed importantly" group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended; was not met. The denial was based on evidence indicating that markers the impacted worker group produced, were only used when the company contracted out work and the company did not import markers during the relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that Rhoda Lee, Inc. replaced domestic production (apparel) with imports, thus the need for markers decreased resulting in the displacement of the worker(s).
The impacted worker(s) of the subject plant producing markers were separately identifiable from other functions performed at the subject firm and therefore is the group of worker(s) which may be considered for TAA eligibility. The company did not import markers and only purchased markers from other domestic sources during the relevant period.
The imports of any other product (apparel) by the company is not relevant to this petition that was filed on behalf of worker(s) producing markers.
Conclusion
After 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 at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of October 2001.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-39,188
RHODA LEE, INC.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-418), the Department of Labor herein presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of eligi-bility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met:
(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated,
or are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;
(2) that sales or production, or both, of the firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
(3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
The investigation was initiated on May 7, 2001, in response to a petition filed by the Amalgamated Ladies= Garment Cutters= Union, Local 10, UNITE, on behalf of workers at Rhoda Lee, Inc., New York, New York. Worker(s) were engaged in activities related to the production of markers used in the production of apparel.
This investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the markers produced by the subject plant are the only markers used when the company contracts work out. The company did not import markers during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of Rhoda Lee, Inc., New York, New York, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 8th day of May, 2001.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
____________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance