[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14957-14958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,113]


Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, NC; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On February 22, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on March 2, 2006 (71 FR 10717-10718).
    The petition for the workers of Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, 
North Carolina, engaged in production planning and sales of apparel 
products was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an 
article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
    The company official filed a request for reconsideration in which 
the petitioners contend that the Department erred in its interpretation 
of work performed at the subject facility as a service and further 
convey that workers of the subject firm supported production of an 
affiliated firm Unifi by ``pulling through Unifi's domestically-
produced yarns into domestically-manufactured garments'' and 
``supported other unaffiliated domestic apparel manufacturing 
facilities.'' The petitioner further states that the subject firm 
should be considered a downstream producer for Unifi, Inc. because it 
assisted Unifi, Inc. in delivering and distributing their products to 
garments manufacturers. The petitioner concludes that because Unimatrix 
promoted usage of yarn manufactured by Unifi in the production of 
fabric and garments done by independent companies which were contracted 
by Unimatrix, the workers of the subject firm should be considered in 
support of production of yarn at Unifi, Inc. The petitioner alleges 
that increased foreign competition and financial health of Unifi, Inc. 
had a direct negative impact on Unimatrix Americas and thus workers of 
the subject firm should be eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA).
    A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the 
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official 
stated that the petitioning group of workers at the subject firm was 
coordinating all sourcing activities for production of apparel done by 
independent contractors in Central America. The workers were 
responsible for ``production planning and sales of domestically-
produced apparel products containing fabric domestically-produced Unifi 
yarn.'' The subject firm ordered, purchased and exported supplies and 
goods needed for production of garments, including purchasing of Unifi 
yarn and arranging its further production into fabric and garments. The 
workers of the subject company located different independent 
manufacturing contractors in Central America, monitored their 
production and kept customers of Unimatrix informed of all production 
issues and ship dates. The official stated that workers of the subject 
firm also coordinated importing of the goods back into the United 
States and handled final shipments and invoicing. The company official 
stated that Unimatrix served as the ``middleman'' between different 
production companies and that majority of Unimatrix' customers, who 
manufacture garments have moved to sourcing from abroad, thus 
negatively impacting the subject firm.
    The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in 
ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade 
adjustment assistance, but rather only whether they produced an article 
within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The investigation on reconsideration revealed that Unimatrix 
Americas, Greensboro, North Carolina is affiliated with Unifi, Inc. 
Workers of Unifi, Inc. in Yadkinville, North Carolina and Madison, 
North Carolina manufacture polyester yarn and nylon. Further 
investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not support 
production of polyester yarn and/or nylon at these facilities but sold 
apparel, utilizing Unifi products. Workers of the subject firm 
purchased yarn from Unifi, outsourced production of fabric out of this 
yarn to independent companies, exported fabric to foreign companies for 
manufacturing of apparel and imported final products back into the 
United States.
    Providing global sourcing, production planning, sales and marketing 
is not considered production of an article within the meaning of 
Section 222 of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do not produce an 
``article'' within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The petitioner attached a document on Unifi's Fourth Quarter 
Results to support the allegations.
    A careful review of this document revealed Unifi's decision to 
focus on the internal resources to support the downstream initiatives 
around the globe. The document clarifies that Unifi, Inc. developed 
internal knowledge, expertise, and relationships to drive Unifi's 
products to the market and as a result it will discontinue Unimatrix 
Americas. All functions performed by Unimatrix Americas will be 
utilized within Unifi because it established a new very successful 
business model to have a successful sourcing.
    The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the 
primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers did not 
produce an article.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for workers and former workers of Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, North 
Carolina.


[[Page 14958]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-4294 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P