[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40737-40738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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