[Federal Register: July 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 40737-40738]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy05-76]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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