Ingram Micro, Santa Ana, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation, 40738 [E5-3744]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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]
[Page 40738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3744]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
