[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56739-56740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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