[Federal Register: July 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 41847-41848]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jy03-93]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-51,120]
Sun Apparel of Texas, Armour Facility, El Paso, TX; Notice of
Determinations Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of May 22, 2003, three workers requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
denial notice was signed on April 7, 2003 and published in the Federal
Register on April 24, 2003 (68 FR 20177).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Sun Apparel, Armour
Facility, El Paso, Texas engaged in the production of patterns, was
denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility
requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was
not met. The subject firm did not increase its reliance on imports of
patterns during the relevant period, nor did it shift production to a
foreign source.
In the reconsideration process, it was revealed that patterns and
markers created at the subject firm were electronically generated and
transmitted, and thus do not constitute production within the meaning
of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The workers allege that other production was performed at the
subject facility and imply that some or all of this production work was
transferred to a company-owned facility in Mexico in the relevant
period.
Aside from the original request for reconsideration, further
information was provided by worker representatives. In order to get a
comprehensive sense of work performed at the subject facility, the
Department requested that both the workers and a company official
supply a list of all work functions performed at the subject facility.
The Department further requested that the company official indicate
whether work functions at the subject facility were shifted to Mexico,
or if the company imported products like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject facility in the relevant period.
The workers allege that petitioning workers produced samples (also
known as approval garments), and imply that work was shifted to Mexico.
They further state that samples were shipped directly to customers in
the U.S.
A company official was contacted on this point and reported that
samples were and are produced at the subject facility. However, sample
production has never occurred at the Mexican affiliate, so no
production of samples was shifted. Further, the company does not import
samples. (As samples are produced for internal use, there is no issue
in regard to customer imports.)
Workers allege that the ``Print Shop'' at the subject facility
produced jokers (waist band labels) and stickers (leg stickers used to
designate size).
The company official contacted affirmed that print shops producing
like or directly competitive stickers were located at both the Amour
and Mexican facilities, and that the company elected to close the Amour
Print Shop and rely exclusively on the Mexican production in this area.
The workers describe the typical functions involved in the Shipping
and Receiving Department. They also list several manufacturing labels
that they serviced in this department.
As the title implies, the functions concerned with shipping and
receiving were not involved with production. Aside from the sample
production, almost all of the production handled by this department
concerned Mexican production, although a very small amount concerned
cutting production that was performed at another El Paso facility. Thus
workers engaged in shipping and receiving at the subject facility
performed services mainly for a foreign production facility.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under
certification for TAA.
The workers then address the nature of the production performed at
the subject facility, which includes the Pattern Making Department, the
Cutting Department, and the Sewing Department. In this section, the
workers
[[Page 41848]]
also address laundering, inspection, packing and shipping.
The company official maintained that, aside from miscellaneous
sewing repair, sample production, and print shop production, no
production occurred at the subject facility. The departments and
functions described by workers in the line of production were performed
mainly for sample production, with the exception of miscellaneous
repairs.
Workers also describe a Trim Department involving functions
performed ``specifically for audit'' purposes, which involved checking
to see that ``orders for * * * accessories were distributed correctly
here and in El Paso.''
As described by the workers, the Trim Department does not involve
production, but performance of a service.
Finally, the workers allege that they trained workers in similar
functions as those performed at the subject facility, although no
specific functions were noted.
The company official did not deny that there was some similarity in
work functions such as production in the Print Shop. However, she did
affirm that no production occurred at the subject facility aside from
sample production and print shop production.
In the original request for reconsideration, the workers state that
the subject firm was previously certified for trade adjustment
assistance, and that the basis for previous certification should be
used to establish eligibility of the current petitioning worker group.
The workers also appear to allege that they performed regular
production of apparel for a specific customer, and not just sample
production.
Workers producing jeans and laundering jeans at the subject
facility were previously certified for trade adjustment assistance (TA-
W-37,187 and TA-W-37,412, respectively). The last active certification,
TA-W-37,412, expired on July 7, 2002. By the date of the above
certification (July 7, 2000), a company official confirmed that all
mass production of apparel had been shifted from the subject facility
to Mexico. As this shift occurred outside the relevant period, it
cannot be used to certify the current worker group. In the current
investigation, it was reconfirmed by a company official that the
subject facility produces apparel for sample purposes only and that all
other apparel production was shifted from the subject facility in 2000.
Finally, to support their claim of a production shift, worker
representatives attached a series of statements from subject firm
workers who performed machine operations, supervision, labeling,
shipping and receiving, and repair and maintenance of equipment at the
Amour facility. One worker statement appears to claim that work was
shifted to Mexico, Canada and Japan.
In regard to specific statements made by employees that they were
engaged in production and that production shifted, the company
confirmed that the only production at the subject facility was for
samples and print shop labels, and that there was no shift in
production of samples or imports of samples.
Workers are separately identifiable between workers in the Print
Shop and all other workers at the subject facility.
It has been determined with respect to workers at Sun Apparel,
Armour Facility, Print Shop, El Paso, Texas that all of the criteria
have been met.
It has been determined with respect to all other workers at Sun
Apparel, Armour Facility, El Paso, Texas that criteria I.C and II.B
have not been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I
conclude that there was a shift in production from Sun Apparel, Armour
Facility, Print Shop, El Paso, Texas to Mexico 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 Sun Apparel, Armour Facility, Print Shop, El
Paso, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after January 8, 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;
I further determine that all other workers at Sun Apparel, Amour
Facility, El Paso, Texas, are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-17827 Filed 7-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P