Federated Merchandising Group, a Part of the Federated Department Stores, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 40737-40738 [E5-3735]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2005 / Notices
threatened to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers at the
subject facility during the relevant
period (January–December 2004).
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that the subject
facility supported an affiliated
production facility, Lawson-Hemphill,
Inc., Central Falls, Rhode Island.
A careful review of previouslysubmitted documents revealed that a
significant number of the workers at the
South Carolina facility were separated
or threatened with separation during the
relevant period and that the primary
function of the South Carolina facility is
to sell textile testing instruments
produced at the Rhode Island facility.
Even if the subject worker group
supported production at the Rhode
Island facility, they could not be
certified for TAA under this petition
because the Rhode Island facility was
not affected by loss of business as a
supplier, assembler, or finisher of
products or components produced for
the TAA-certified firms identified in the
petition: Globe Manufacturing, Fall
River, Massachusetts (TA–W–38,840);
Cavalier Specialty Yarn, Gastonia, North
Carolina (TA–W–53,226); Cone Mills
Corporation, Cliffside, North Carolina
(TA–W–53,291A); Pillowtex
Corporation, Kannapolis, North Carolina
(TA–W–39,416); Burlington Industries,
Greensboro, North Carolina (TA–W–
40,205); and Spartan Mills, Spartanburg,
South Carolina (TA–W–37,126).
Lawson-Hemphill, Inc. cannot be
considered a secondarily-affected
company because textile testing
instruments is not a component of
textiles and the company neither
assembles nor finishes an article
produced by the above-identified
companies.
Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm
the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of LawsonHemphill Sales, Inc., Spartanburg,
South Carolina.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of
June, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3738 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:32 Jul 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[[TA–W–56,782]
FC Meyer Packaging, LLC/Millen
Industries, Inc.; Lawrence, MA; Notice
of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application of May 20, 2005, a
petitioner 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 6,
2005, and published in the Federal
Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30145).
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 FC
Meyer Packaging, LLC/Millen
Industries, Inc., Lawrence,
Massachusetts engaged in production of
shoe boxes was denied because the
‘‘contributed importantly’’ group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was
not met, nor was there a shift in
production from that firm to a foreign
country. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’
test is generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed that imports of
shoe boxes were minimal during the
relevant period and imports did not
contribute importantly to separations at
the subject firm. The subject firm did
not import shoe boxes nor did it shift
production to a foreign country during
the relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that the subject
firm lost its business due to the
customers shifting their production of
shoes abroad and buying shoe boxes
overseas.
The petitioner concludes that,
because the production of shoes occurs
abroad, the subject firm workers
producing shoe boxes are import
impacted.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department must consider imports
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40737
that are like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm. The
Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm’s major declining customer
regarding their purchases of shoe boxes.
The survey revealed that the declining
customers did not import shoe boxes
during the relevant period.
The petitioner further cites a list of
customers which shifted their
production overseas and imported shoe
boxes back to the United States.
Some of these customers were already
surveyed by the Department during the
original investigation. A review of the
survey responses confirms import
purchases of show boxes were minimal
and did not contribute importantly to
the layoffs at the subject plant during
the relevant period.
A company official was contacted to
verify the allegations regarding the
customers which were not surveyed
during the initial investigation. The
official stated that all of these
companies were customers of the
subject firm in the years prior to 2001,
which is outside of the relevant time
period.
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 day 22nd of
June, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3739 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–51,750]
Federated Merchandising Group, a
Part of the Federated Department
Stores, New York, NY; Notice of
Negative Determination on Remand
By Order dated February 7, 2005, the
United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) directed the Department
of Labor (Department) to further
investigate Former Employees of
Federated Merchandising Group, a Part
of Federated Department Stores v.
United States (Court No. 03–00689).
The Department’s denial of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
40738
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2005 / Notices
assistance for the subject worker group
was issued on June 10, 2003 and the
Notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on June 19, 2003
(68 FR 36846). Workers produced paper
patterns and sample garments at the
subject facility. The investigation
revealed that worker separations at the
subject facility are not attributable to
either increased in imports or a shift of
production abroad of paper patterns and
sample garments, but are attributable to
a change in the company’s production
technology which resulted in
substitution of the manual labor by
computer design programs.
By application of July 2, 2003, the
workers requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination. In the request for
reconsideration, the workers assert that
the subject company could not have
replaced the manual labor with a
computer program (due to the
complexity of decision making required
in pattern making and the physical
demands required to construct sample
garments) and that the subject company
must have outsourced production
(possibly to a foreign source).
The Department contacted a company
official and was informed that the
computer program had reduced the
need for manpower and that the work
performed by the petitioners had not
been outsourced, domestically or
abroad.
The Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration was issued on August
19, 2003 and published in the Federal
Register on September 30, 2003 (68 FR
56327). The workers’ request was
denied because there was no error or
misunderstanding of the law or facts in
the investigation.
By letter dated September 24, 2003,
the petitioners appealed to the USCIT
for judicial review. In the appeal, the
petitioners alleged that a computer
pattern making program cannot replace
human pattern makers, but was merely
a tool to be used by the subject workers,
and stated that it is their belief that their
jobs were being outsourced abroad since
the subject firm has not reduced the
number of styles produced.
On February 7, 2005, the USCIT
directed the Department to investigate
into the petitioner’s allegation that the
new computer program cannot replace
the human pattern makers, to determine
the reason(s) for the subject firm’s
reduced need for garment samples and
patterns in the period prior to the
subject workers’ separations, and to
determine the subject workers’
eligibility to apply for trade adjustment
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:32 Jul 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
assistance as provided by the Trade Act
of 1974.
In response to the petitioners’ claim
that the new computer program could
not have replaced the manual pattern
makers, the Department contacted a
company official for clarification about
the pattern making process. The
company official described the process
and explained how the need for manual
pattern making was reduced by new
pattern making technology. The
company official also clarified that the
sample makers made samples from
manually created patterns and not the
computer-generated patterns.
Prior to the new technology, technical
pattern design teams created new
patterns with the pattern makers
drawing each new pattern by hand
based on the designers’ advice. The new
pattern making technology enabled the
technical designers to access a library of
electronically-stored patterns and utilize
those patterns in creating new patterns,
thereby reducing the need for handdrawn patterns. As the technology
became more efficient, the need for
manual pattern makers decreased.
Prior to the workers’ separations in
January 2003, the subject company had
conducted a productivity analysis and
concluded that there was not enough
work to justify the then-current staffing
levels of manual pattern makers and
sample makers. There was a reduced
need for the manual pattern makers due
to increased productivity in other areas
of production and decreased need for
new patterns as existing patterns stored
in the computer could be recalled and
utilized. The company determined that
one manual pattern maker could
manage the workload of four manual
pattern makers, and reduced the staff
accordingly. Since the manual sample
makers created samples from the
patterns drawn by the manual pattern
makers, the need for manual sample
makers decreased as the number of
hand-drawn patterns decreased. Thus,
the level of manual staffing was reduced
to match the level of manual pattern
makers.
While sample imports increased after
the implementation of new technology
in March 2003, the company’s
submissions clearly show that the
separations were not due to the subject
company shifting production abroad or
increasing imports of patterns or
samples during the relevant period, but
due to the subject company’s institution
of production improvement measures
which resulted in the reduced need for
manual labor in general. As such, the
Department has determined that the
workers have not met the criteria set
forth in Section 222 of the Trade Act of
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1974, as amended, and are not eligible
to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Conclusion
After reconsideration on remand, I
affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance for workers and
former workers of Federated
Merchandising Group, a Part of
Federated Department Stores, New
York, New York.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of
July, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3735 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,232]
Ingram Micro, Santa Ana, CA; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on May 23,
2005 in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers at Ingram Micro, Santa Ana,
California.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of
June, 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3744 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,121]
J.E. Morgan Knitting Mills (Sara Lee)
Tamaqua, PA; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, an investigation was
initiated on May 5, 2005 in response to
a petition filed by a company official on
behalf of workers at J.E. Morgan Knitting
Mills (Sara Lee), Tamaqua,
Pennsylvania.
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40737-40738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3735]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-51,750]
Federated Merchandising Group, a Part of the Federated Department
Stores, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand
By Order dated February 7, 2005, the United States Court of
International Trade (USCIT) directed the Department of Labor
(Department) to further investigate Former Employees of Federated
Merchandising Group, a Part of Federated Department Stores v. United
States (Court No. 03-00689).
The Department's denial of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment
[[Page 40738]]
assistance for the subject worker group was issued on June 10, 2003 and
the Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on
June 19, 2003 (68 FR 36846). Workers produced paper patterns and sample
garments at the subject facility. The investigation revealed that
worker separations at the subject facility are not attributable to
either increased in imports or a shift of production abroad of paper
patterns and sample garments, but are attributable to a change in the
company's production technology which resulted in substitution of the
manual labor by computer design programs.
By application of July 2, 2003, the workers requested
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination. In the
request for reconsideration, the workers assert that the subject
company could not have replaced the manual labor with a computer
program (due to the complexity of decision making required in pattern
making and the physical demands required to construct sample garments)
and that the subject company must have outsourced production (possibly
to a foreign source).
The Department contacted a company official and was informed that
the computer program had reduced the need for manpower and that the
work performed by the petitioners had not been outsourced, domestically
or abroad.
The Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration was issued on August 19, 2003 and published in the
Federal Register on September 30, 2003 (68 FR 56327). The workers'
request was denied because there was no error or misunderstanding of
the law or facts in the investigation.
By letter dated September 24, 2003, the petitioners appealed to the
USCIT for judicial review. In the appeal, the petitioners alleged that
a computer pattern making program cannot replace human pattern makers,
but was merely a tool to be used by the subject workers, and stated
that it is their belief that their jobs were being outsourced abroad
since the subject firm has not reduced the number of styles produced.
On February 7, 2005, the USCIT directed the Department to
investigate into the petitioner's allegation that the new computer
program cannot replace the human pattern makers, to determine the
reason(s) for the subject firm's reduced need for garment samples and
patterns in the period prior to the subject workers' separations, and
to determine the subject workers' eligibility to apply for trade
adjustment assistance as provided by the Trade Act of 1974.
In response to the petitioners' claim that the new computer program
could not have replaced the manual pattern makers, the Department
contacted a company official for clarification about the pattern making
process. The company official described the process and explained how
the need for manual pattern making was reduced by new pattern making
technology. The company official also clarified that the sample makers
made samples from manually created patterns and not the computer-
generated patterns.
Prior to the new technology, technical pattern design teams created
new patterns with the pattern makers drawing each new pattern by hand
based on the designers' advice. The new pattern making technology
enabled the technical designers to access a library of electronically-
stored patterns and utilize those patterns in creating new patterns,
thereby reducing the need for hand-drawn patterns. As the technology
became more efficient, the need for manual pattern makers decreased.
Prior to the workers' separations in January 2003, the subject
company had conducted a productivity analysis and concluded that there
was not enough work to justify the then-current staffing levels of
manual pattern makers and sample makers. There was a reduced need for
the manual pattern makers due to increased productivity in other areas
of production and decreased need for new patterns as existing patterns
stored in the computer could be recalled and utilized. The company
determined that one manual pattern maker could manage the workload of
four manual pattern makers, and reduced the staff accordingly. Since
the manual sample makers created samples from the patterns drawn by the
manual pattern makers, the need for manual sample makers decreased as
the number of hand-drawn patterns decreased. Thus, the level of manual
staffing was reduced to match the level of manual pattern makers.
While sample imports increased after the implementation of new
technology in March 2003, the company's submissions clearly show that
the separations were not due to the subject company shifting production
abroad or increasing imports of patterns or samples during the relevant
period, but due to the subject company's institution of production
improvement measures which resulted in the reduced need for manual
labor in general. As such, the Department has determined that the
workers have not met the criteria set forth in Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, and are not eligible to apply for worker
adjustment assistance.
Conclusion
After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Federated Merchandising
Group, a Part of Federated Department Stores, New York, New York.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of July, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-3735 Filed 7-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
