DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,674

LEVI STRAUSS AND COMPANY
EUGENE, OREGON

Notice of Revised Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).

The initial investigation, initiated November 26, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on January 14, 2015,
that was based on the firm not producing an article. The determination
was applicable to workers and former workers of Levi Strauss & Company,
Eugene, Oregon (herein known as “Levi Strauss & Company”). An
application for Regulatory Reconsideration was submitted on February
6, 2015. A Negative Determination on Regulatory Reconsideration was
issued on April 22, 2015.

The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of foreign made apparel. Specifically, the workers supply
support service activities for foreign produced apparel such as
information technology, distribution, human resources and other
shared services. The workers’ role in the firm is to direct foreign
production to United States distribution sites where apparel will
end up in retail. The workers also report back orders to the foreign
manufacturing facilities to drive production. The workers are
separately identified by support service supplied but all are
engaged in activities related to the firm’s foreign production of
apparel.

Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that an acquisition
in services have contributed to the workers’ separations at the subject
firm.

Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number or
proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm have become totally or
partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially
separated.

Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers’ firm
has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive
with the services supplied by the workers which contributed importantly
to worker group separations at Levi Strauss & Company.

Conclusion

After careful review, I determine that workers of Levi Strauss
& Company, Eugene, Oregon, who are engaged in activities related to
the supply of foreign production support services, meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the
following certification:

"All workers of Levi Strauss & Company, Eugene, Oregon who
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after
November 25, 2013, through two years from the date of certification,
and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation
from employment on the date of certification through two years from the
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 25th day of September, 2015

/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,674

LEVI STRAUSS & COMPANY
EUGENE, OREGON


Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

On March 10, 2015, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of
Levi Strauss and Company, Eugene, Oregon. The notice
was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2015
(80 FR 17080).

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 initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination based on findings that the worker separations
at Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon are not attributable
to increased imports of articles or a shift in production of
articles to a foreign country. The investigation also
confirmed that the subject firm is not a Supplier or
Downstream Producer.

The request for reconsideration asserts that the
workers perform production forecasting activities and order
management support of Levi Strauss’ production of clothing
and apparel. The reconsideration application concludes that
both activities drive production and has been shifted to a
foreign country. I

nformation obtained during the investigation
confirmed that Levi Strauss & Co. does not produce articles
within the United States. The investigation confirmed that
all production of articles for the Levi Strauss & Co. brand
is done by another firm not covered under the definition of
a "firm" in 29 CFR 90.2.

Therefore, after careful review of the request for reconsideration,
the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion

After careful review, I determine that the requirements
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met
and, therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Levi
Strauss & Company, Eugene, Oregon, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 22nd day of April, 2015


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
_______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,674

LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
EUGENE, OREGON

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated on February 6, 2015, a state workforce
official requested administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to
apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers
and former workers of Levi Strauss & Company, Eugene, Oregon.
The determination was issued on January 14, 2015 and the Notice
of Determination was published in the Federal Register on February
18, 2015 (80 FR 8692).

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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that worker separations at Levi Strauss & Co.,
Eugene, Oregon are not attributable to increased imports of articles
or a shift in production of articles to a foreign country. The request
for reconsideration asserts that although the workers are engaged in
service-related activities, the workers perform production forecasting
activities and order management support of Levi Strauss’ production of
clothing and apparel. The reconsideration application concludes that
both activities drive production and has been shifted to a foreign
country.

The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of
1974.

Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S.
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of March, 2015


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
_______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,674

LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
EUGENE, OREGON

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). For the
Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or
an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or
partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers' firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers'
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like
or directly competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers of
a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be
met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article that was the basis for such
certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers' separation or threat of separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on November 26, 2014 by a state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon. The workers'
firm produces apparel. The worker group is engaged in activities
related to customer service, order management and finance.
The petitioner alleges that the firm support functions are
being shifted to a third party vendor overseas. During the course
of the investigation, information was collected from the workers'
firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that worker separations at Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene,
Oregon are not attributable to increased imports of articles or a
shift in production of articles to a foreign country. Rather, the
investigation confirmed that the worker separations are
attributable to a shift of services to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon is not a Supplier
or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers
who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Levi Strauss & Co.,
Eugene, Oregon engaged in activities related to the supply of
customer service order management and finance for a firm that
produces clothing and apparel are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of January 2015

/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance