DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,120

SUN APPAREL OF TEXAS
JONES APPAREL OF TEXAS LTD
ARMOUR FACILITY
PRINT SHOP
EL PASO, TEXAS

Amended Notice of Determinations Regarding
Application for Reconsideration

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
USC 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of
Determinations Regarding Application for Reconsideration on July
1, 2003, applicable to workers of Sun Apparel of Texas, Armour
Facility, El Paso, Texas. The notice was published in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2003 (68 FR 41847-41848).
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed
the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers
were engaged in the production of jokers (waist band labels) and
stickers (leg stickers used to designate size).
New information shows that Jones Apparel of Texas Ltd is the
parent firm of Sun Apparel of Texas. Workers separated from
employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a
separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Jones
Apparel of Texas Ltd.


Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to
properly reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department’s certification is to include
all workers of the Print Shop working at Sun Apparel of Texas,
Jones Apparel of Texas Ltd, Armour Facility, El Paso, Texas who
were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-51,120 is hereby
issued as follows:
"All workers of Sun Apparel of Texas, Jones Apparel of
Texas Ltd, Armour Facility, Print Shop, El Paso, Texas,
who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after January 8, 2002, through July 1,
2005, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974."

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 24th day of July 2003.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division
of Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,120

SUN APPAREL OF TEXAS
ARMOUR FACILITY
EL PASO, TEXAS


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 mis-
interpretation 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 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, D.C., this 1st day of July, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance