TABLE 7.-ESTIMATED NET EMPLOYMENT EFFECT IF CANADIAN CONSUMPTION EQUALLED PRODUCTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT, CANADA, 1970–75

TABLE 8.-CANADIAN PRODUCTIVITY AS PROPORTION OF U.S. PRODUCTIVITY, AND CANADIAN AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS AS PROPORTION OF U.S. EARNINGS, MOTOR VEHICLE AND ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT INDUSTRIES, CANADA AND UNITED STATES, 1967-73 AND 1967-75

1 Data used were value added per production worker man-hour in the motor vehicle assembly industry, as reported in statistics Canada's "Motor Vehicle Manufacturers" (catalogue 42-209, annual), table 1, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Annual Survey of Manufacturers," 1968-74.

2 Data used were value added per production worker man-hour in the auto parts and accessories industry, as reported in statistics Canada's "Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories Manufacturers" (catalogue 42-210, annual), table 1, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Annual Survey of Manufacturers," 1968-74.

3 Statistics Canada, "Employment Earnings & Hours" (catalogue 72-002 monthly), 1967-75, table 2, and U.S. Department of the Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics "Employment and Earnings," monthly, 1967-75, table c-2. Data are for average hourly earnings of production workers on private nonagricultural payrolls in the motor vehicle assembly industry (S...) 323, Canada, and S.I.C. 3711, United States).

Ibid. Data are for average hourly earnings of production workers on private nonagricultural payrolls in the motor vehicle parts and accessories industry (S.I.C. 325, Canada, and S.I.C. 3714, United States).

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA-UAW, Detroit, Mich., April 19, 1976. Re Workers of Bower Roller Bearing Division, Federal-Mogul Corporation. Trade Act Case No. TEA-W-206.

Congressman JIM O'HARA,

Rayburn House Office Bldg.,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN O'HARA: I have been advised that in the course of oversight hearings on the Trade Act of 1974, a representative of the Department of Labor alleged that none of the workers in the Hart Plant were involved in work related to the production of the affected product. This is not an accurate statement. While over four inch bearing production was concentrated in the Hart Plant, the Hart facility was also integrally involved with the production of passenger car tapered roller bearing in the size range of zero to four inches.

Attached please find a copy of the "UAW Submission To The U.S. Department

f Labor in Support of Its Request For Review of Certification," dated March 31, 975. (See particularly, pages 7 through 13.)

Very truly yours,

LEONARD R. PAGE.

Assistant General Counsel, UAW Legal Department. TAW SUBMISSION TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION

Bower Roller Bearing Division of Federal-Mogul Corporation operated two lants in Detroit, located on Hart and Shoemaker Avenues. The International Union, UAW, and its Local Union No. 681 has been the exclusive bargaining gent for workers in these plants since 1941.

The plants manufactured all sizes of tapered roller bearings. The Shoemaker lant manufactured primarily high volume passenger car tapered roller bearings 1 the size range of 0"-4". Aircraft bearings were made in a separate building hich was considered under the contract as part of Shoemaker. Low volume assenger car bearings and large size (4" and over) tapered and cylindrical roller earings were produced in the Hart Plant.

PLANT CLOSINGS

In October, 1971, the Company announced it was closing these plants. Approxinately 2,000 workers were actively employed at these plants at that time. These workers averaged over 50 years in age and 20 years in service. Approximately 750 vorkers were employed at Shoemaker. These workers were covered by the terms of a labor agreement between UAW and the Company which expired on Februry 28, 1974. One seniority list was maintained for both plants.

The over 4" bearing operations were eventually transferred to other FederalMogul plants in Hamilton, Alabama and Macomb, Illinois. The Company went out of the passenger car and aircraft bearing manufacturing business.

TEA PETITION

In July, 1973, the UAW filed a Workers Petition for Adjustment Assistance inder § 301(a) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The Tariff Commission instiuted an investigation on August 10, 1973, in case No. TEA-W-206. Public hearings in Washington, D.C. were held on September 6, 1973. On September 28, 1973, the Commission, by majority vote, reported to the President that articles ike or directly competitive with tapered roller bearings having a diameter of 4'' or less were being imported into the United States as a result in major part of concessions under trade agreements in such increased quantities as to cause unemployment or underemployment of a significant number of workers. On November 5, 1973, the Department of Labor issued its certification: "All hourly and salaried workers of the Shoemaker Ave. Detroit, Michigan plant of the Federal Mogul Corporation's Bower Roller Bearing Division who became unemployed or underemployed after August 27, 1972, and before November 1, 1973, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title III, Chapter 3, of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, except that the following identified employees of the Shoemaker Ave. plant shall be eligible to apply for adjustment assistance even if they become unemployed or underemployed after November 3, 1973." By November 1, 1973, the Shoemaker Plant was closed, however, a small portion of the Shoemaker operations were transferred into the Hart Plant where these operations continued until the Hart Plant closed in December, 1973. Clean up operations continued until April, 1974.

SENIORITY REDUCTIONS

Prior to these dates, there had been a gradual reduction in the work force of both plants, pursuant to the seniority clauses in the labor agreement. For reductions in force resulting from a lack of work, all plants are considered one unit. In this case, since Shoemaker closed first, a reduction in work at Shoemaker resulted in the eventual displacement of the lowest seniority employee in the affected classification regardless of where that worker was physically located.

Aircraft was considered a department of Shoemaker under the labor agreement. A reduction in force in a non-aircraft department of Shoemaker, in some cases, resulted in a displacement in the aircraft department which, in turn, resulted in a displacement of workers at Hart. Indeed, in many cases, several employees changed jobs at the Shoemaker and Hart plants before the lowest seniority person was put out of work.

72-532 0-76-49

The majority of the high volume passenger car bearing workers at the Shoemaker Plant had sufficient seniority to bump into the aircraft department or to the Hart Plant during its phase-out period.

Another large group of workers were required to apply for early retirement under the labor agreement during this phase-out period. The Pension Plan expired with the labor agreement on February 28, 1974.

CLARIFICATION GUIDELINES

apply for

After the certification was issued by the Department of Labor, the Company and Union met with the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) to determine which workers were potentially eligible for benefits. (The MESC administers the Worker Adjustment Assistance program on behalf of the federal government.) On February 8, 1974, the UAW wrote to 774 Shoemaker workers, identified by the parties as within the certification, to urge them benefits. However workers from both plants thereupon began to apply for adjustment assistance. The MESC determined that a number of questions relating to the effects of the application of the seniority system had to be clarified. Both the UAW and the MESC wrote the Department of Labor. The UAW request for a reinvestigation of the certification was denied. The MESC received guidelines for dealing with the "bumping" problems. These guidelines required that an employee laid off from Hart to the "street" could only be determined as eligible if it could be established that the Hart employee had been "bumped" by an adversely-affected worker from the Shoemaker Plant.

The certification and the guidelines therefore excluded:

1. a traditional worker at Shoemaker, who had been reduced pursuant to the seniority clause to Hart who could not establish that his final layoff a direct Shoemaker reduction;

was caused by

2. a traditional Hart employee who worked on all sizes of bearings. The result was somewhat paradoxical. Traditional Hart employees who were "bumped" by Shoemaker reductions were determined to be eligible, while the traditional Shoemaker worker whose seniority determined that he or she work during the phase-out period at Hart, was denied benefits. In the extreme case, a Shoemaker worker who spent only his last 12 hours of actual work at the Hart plant was denied benefits. The longest stay of a traditional Shoemaker worker at the Hart plant was six months; the average was two-three months. Indeed, even those Shoemaker workers who transferred with their work and machines into the Hart Plant during the phase-out period were denied benefits.

APPEALS

In the summer and fall of 1973, the MESC, based on these guidelines, approved approximately 247 applications. Approximately 700-800 applications Of these, only 334 appealed the adverse determinations.

were denied.

Beginning December, 1973, the MESC began conducting hearings on these appeals. The hearings were conducted by Referee Donald Murch. The UAW represented the claimants and the hearings continued through March, 1975. In mid-March, 1974, the MESC began notifying approximately 50 of the 247 employees who had drawn full benefits (in excess of $5,000) to refund these payments. The MESC felt that the original determinations in these cases were

erroneous.

The net boxscore as of March, 1975 is as follows:

Active workers (Hart and Shoemaker).

Shoemaker workers notified to apply..

Actual applications.

Denials..

Appeals (in process).

Favorable initial determinations_

Reversals of 247 original determinations (appeals to be processed).

Thus, as of March, 1975, the only 200 out of the original 2,000 workers have been determined to be eligible for adjustment assistance. Of the remaining 1,800

workers, approximately 380 employees are still pursuing appeals.

CAW ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF EXPANSION OF THE CERTIFICATION

The Union contends that the certification issued by the Department of Labor on November 5, 1973 is too narrow. The certification covers only workers of the Shoemaker Plant and thereby excludes workers who were involved in the production of affected bearings at the Hart Plant. Indeed, as applied by the MESC, Shoemaker workers employed in the aircraft department at Shoemaker have even been excluded.

In its Report to the President, the Tariff Commission made no findings with regard to 4" and over bearings produced at the Hart Plant. An affirmative determination was made with regard to "petitioning workers employed in the production of 0 to 4" tapered roller bearings in the Bower Roller Bearing Division of Federal Mogul at Detroit . . ." (Report, p. 9.)

REPORT COVERED BOTH PLANTS

It is clear that Hart workers involved in the production of 0-4" bearings come within the literal definition of this finding. Such Hart workers are employees of the Bower Roller Bearing Division and produced 0-4" bearings. No specific restriction or exclusion was made which segregated the Hart or Shoemaker plants on the basis of 0-4" bearings. Indeed, the reference to Bower Roller Bearing Division infers workers at both plants. The Report consistently refers to the "Detroit plants." In particular, the Commission found: "We believe the evidence in this investigation shows clearly that increased imports of tapered roller bearings in the 0-4 inch sizes were the major factor causing the unemployment or underemployment of workers at the Detroit plants." (Report, p. 7.)

At a minimum, the MESC interpretation of the certification to exclude workers in the aircraft department of the Shoemaker Plant is not only contrary to the actual relationship of the aircraft department to the Shoemaker Plant, but also the findings of the Tariff Commission. By the terms of the labor agreement, aircraft was considered as part and parcel of the Shoemaker complex. All support facilities for aircraft were provided from the Shoemaker Plant. Aircraft was maintained as a separate department solely as a cost-accounting profit center. Finally, in the Tariff Commission's Report, the Commission found: "Aircraft bearings were also produced at the Shoemaker Ave. plant." (Report, p. 4).1

CERTIFICATION IGNORES HART UNDER 4′′ PRODUCTION

The rationale of the original certification can be gleaned from the Notice: "Workers in all departments of the Hart Ave. Plant were primarily involved in employment related to over 4 inch bearing production and, therefore, increased imports of 0 to 4 inch tapered roller bearings are not the major factor causing their unemployment or underemployment." The Union submits that this statement was erroneous. The UAW contends that there was no appropriate subdivision of the Bower Roller Bearing Division.

It is admitted that under 4" bearing production was a substantial percentage of the total Hart output. If the Hart Plant had been the only one involved in the original UAW Petition and assuming the Tariff Commission would have still ruled favorably, it is simply inconceivable that the Department of Labor could not issue a certification covering all or at least some of the Hart workers. The existing certification simply rules out benefits for over 1300 workers on the ground that under 4" bearing production did not affect all of those workers. The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the Hart workers would have become unemployed if only under 4" bearing production ceased and over 4" bearing production continued. The over 4" bearing production and machinery was transferred to Macomb, Illinois. This relocation created approximately 400 jobs at Macomb.

The Hart and Shoemaker Plants were a totally integrated operation, both functionally and administratively. We believe that the fundamental error in the original certification was in an approach which separated the plants for analysis of affected workers. Such a separated approach was improper. The Plants should be viewed as one complex-the Bower Roller Bearing Division. In support of this argument, the Union points to the following facts.

Even the dissenting Commissioners viewed aircraft as part of Shoemaker: "The other plant-that on Shoemaker Avenue-produced tapered roller bearings having an outside diameter of less than 4 inches, as well as a small volume of roller bearings for aircraft."

1. There was no such thing as a Hart worker or a Shoemaker worker. The labe agreement provides for one seniority list covering both plants. A worker hel seniority by classification, not by plant. Workers moved frequently back and fort between plants.2 All during the certification, hundreds of workers moved bac and forth between the plants.

2. Work at the Hart Plant was not segregated by size of bearings.-Production c all size bearings permeated all departments at Hart.3 Most employees move from machine to machine at Hart. Some machines were making parts for over 4 bearings, while others were set up for under 4" parts. At the same time som Hart workers were exclusively involved in the production of under 4′′ bearings 3. A major part of Hart's total production involved under 4′′ bearings.-Durin the certification period, the under 4′′ bearing production at Hart approximate 25-40% of the total sales. By volume, the under 4" bearing production at Har amounted to approximately 40%.

In the Tariff Commission's Report, the production of 4 to 8 inch bearings a Hart was not viewed as controlling: "Production in these sizes of tapered rolle bearings is moderate compared with the production of the 0 to 4 inch tapered roller bearing."

In addition, these Hart figures do not take into account adjustments for parts made at Hart to be used in Shoemaker production (retainers, blade grinders. etc.). Hart ran all the low volume passenger car bearings, while the high volume runs were intended for Shoemaker. However, it was common, in order to meet delivery dates on high volume Shoemaker orders, to have the overflow run at Hart. 4. The Plants were functionally integrated. Neither plant could run independently. Each plant was the exclusive source of certain parts used in the other plant.

HART WORK FOR SHOEMAKER

(a) Hart produced all the retainers (circular mechanism which holds the rolls in the bearing) for both plants.

(b) Hart reground all blade grinders for both plants (Blades are used continuously in roll outside diameter machines. These machines grind the rolls which are the integral part of the bearing.)

(c) All In-Line, O.D., I.D. hone machines were located at Hart. (The 60 machines honed only bearings which were under 4''.)

(d) The Hart Service Pack Department packed a portion of all Shoemaker work. During the last year of Shoemaker operations, the Hart Service Pack Department performed all the Shoemaker service pack work.

SHOEMAKER WORK FOR HART

(a) Shoemaker made all rolls for both plants. Rolls were made in the Cold Header Department. (Rolls are the small bars upon which the bearing rotates.) (b) Shoemaker was used as the steel storage area for all steel used in both plants. 5. The plants were also administratively integrated.-The Bower Roller Bearing Division offices, responsible for the overall operation of both plants, were located at Hart.

The Personnel. Labor Relations, Payroll and Medical Departments were all centralized at Hart. All meetings on labor-management disputes for both plants were held at Hart (grievance meetings, arbitration). All employee discharges and reinstatements from lay-off, medical leave and personal leave were from the Hart Personnel Department. All employees seeking retirement, sickness and accident benefits, health care benefits, life insurance and supplemental unemployment benefits made such application only at the Hart Personnel office.

The Company Doctor was located at the Hart Plant. All Shoemaker employees went to the Hart Plant for doctor appointments.

The Union office for both plants was maintained at the Hart Plant. This office was the central meeting and record-keeping area for all Union officials of both plants.

All management supervisory meetings (held regularly to deal with problems such as productivity, scrap, discipline, new policy, etc.) for both Hart and Shoemaker foremen were held at the Hart Plant.

These continuous seniority movements were the principal reason why only 200 of the 774 workers have been certified. As the plants closed, Shoemaker workers "reduced" to Hart, bumping Hart workers with lesser seniority who, in turn, "bumped" other Hart workers. In all reductions involving more than two reductions, the MESC guidelines state that no workers are entitled to benefits.

The Bower Room at Hart was the only department which was not involved in the produc tion of under 4" bearings.