DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,600

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY
PORTLAND, OREGON

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on October 16, 2002, a petitioner
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 applicable to workers of
Columbia Sportswear Company, Portland, Oregon was signed on
September 25, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on
September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61160).
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 was filed on behalf of workers at Columbia
Sportswear Company, Portland, Oregon engaged in activities
related to the design services for sportswear apparel. The
petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the
Act.
The petitioner alleges that the same workers were certified
in 1996, and attached a copy of a certification for the Portland
facility (TA-W-31,649).
A review of this certification reveals that cutters and
sewers were part of the petitioning worker group and, as such,
were determined to be engaged in production of an article within
the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act. Workers engaged in
design services were in support of this production and were also
determined to be eligible. However, in the current negative
determination under reconsideration, the petitioning worker group
did not include production workers, and therefore workers
providing design services cannot be grouped with production
workers.
The petitioner alleges that the workers are not engaged in
“bookkeeping services” as addressed in the “Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance”.
A review of the initial investigation indicates that the
workers were engaged in design services for sportswear apparel.
The TAA decision was based on the correct service function
provided by the petitioning workers. The Department
inadvertently referenced “bookkeeping” rather than “design”
services in the decision.
Finally, the petitioner alleges that subject firm workers
produced a product, and that they were not engaged in “providing
design services.”
In clarifying their job function, the petitioner states that
the petitioning worker group “were a group of technicians who
made the first patterns, sized patterns and figured out how much
fabric those patterns (required),” concluding that the work was
done “on a computer system.” The fact that the pattern-making was
generated electronically and did not involve a physical product
constitutes a service rather than the production of an article as
established by Section 222(3) of the Act.
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.
Further, even if the patterns generated by the petitioning
worker group were considered articles, they are shipped to an
affiliated offshore facility, where they are incorporated into
mass produced sportswear apparel. Thus, since the company does
not import patterns, there would be no evidence of import impact.



Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 26th day of February, 2003
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick


EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance