[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 41844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17822]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,073]


Collins & Aikman Automotive Systems, Marshall, MI; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 30, 2003, the International Union, UAW, 
Region 1C and Local Union 1294 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 
April 16, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2003 
(68 FR 23322).
    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 petition for the workers of Collins & Aikman Automotive 
Systems, Marshall, Michigan was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the workers' 
firm. The survey revealed that none of the respondents increased their 
purchases of vibration dampeners. The company did not import vibration 
dampeners in the relevant period nor did it shift production to a 
foreign source.
    The union asserts that the company shifted production to Canada, 
and in support of this, includes a letter dated October 1, 2002 from a 
former company official who indicates that some plant production 
previously supplied by the subject plant to an affiliated Canadian 
facility was outsourced to a Canadian vendor.
    A review of the initial investigation revealed that the same 
company official who provided the letter noted above also provided 
information to the Department in March of 2003. This information 
included a table that clearly delineated which customers were 
responsible for sales losses from the subject plant in the relevant 
period, and provides exact figures of the volume of sales loss that 
each customer was responsible for. The table further indicates that a 
Collin's & Aikman facility in Canada ceased purchasing vibration 
deadeners from the subject facility, and that this production was 
``resourced to another vendor''. However, in context to total plant 
production, the sales loss to this customer was negligible. Further, in 
a communication with the Department during the initial investigation, 
this same company official stated that it was the decline in business 
from another customer who represented the overwhelming majority of 
subject plant business that precipitated the shift in production to 
another domestic facility, and subsequent closure of the subject plant.
    The union appears to allege that a significant shift in production 
to Canada is indicated in a local new article that mentions the closure 
of two Collins & Aikman domestic plants (including the subject 
facility) and later states that a Collins & Aikman facility in Ontario, 
Canada ``took on more business as Collins & Aikman restructured with 
work transferred from closed plants.'' The union infers that the 
subject plant must be one of the plants that shifted production to 
Canada because it is one of two plants mentioned as being closed.
    As already indicated, a negligible amount of production was shifted 
from the subject facility to Canada, albeit not significant enough to 
contribute significantly to layoffs. Plant closure is predominantly 
attributable to the decline in business from the subject facility's 
largest customer and a subsequent decision by the company to shift 
production from the subject facility to another domestic facility in 
Ohio.

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, DC this 27th day of June, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-17822 Filed 7-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P