[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16837-16838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8348]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,222]


Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, Piketon, OH; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on August 15, 2002, an attorney acting on 
behalf of the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 
International Union, Local 5-689, 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 Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, Piketon, Ohio was signed on July 
1, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2002 (67 FR 
47400).
    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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Bechtel Jacobs 
Company LLC, Piketon, Ohio engaged in activities related to the 
environmental management services and site restoration activities. The 
petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an 
article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
    The union alleges that laid off workers at Bechtel Jacobs Company 
LLC, Piketon, Ohio were in direct support of United States Enrichment 
Corporation (USEC), which is currently TAA certified. The union 
proceeds to assert that, because the union secured ``bumping'' rights 
for laid-off workers of USEC (allowing them seniority rights in 
obtaining positions with Bechtel Jacobs), this tie to the TAA certified 
firm validates the petitioning workers' eligibility. The union also 
asserts that, as all union-represented employees of Bechtel Jacobs are 
fomer employees of USEC, the import impact on the certified firm has a 
direct bearing on the petitioning worker group.
    There is no legal affiliation between Bechtel Jacobs and the TAA 
certified firm. In fact, the union lawyer attests to this, stating that 
the two companies are ``separate legal entities''. The existence of 
bumping rights (as established by a union) does not meet the connection 
required for petitioning worker eligibility based on affiliation to a 
TAA certified firm.
    The petitioner further asserts that, because workers at Bechtel 
Jacobs are entirely reliant on production levels at USEC, the subject 
firm workers should be certified.
    The fact that service workers are dependant on the production of a 
trade certified firm does not automatically make the service workers 
eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Before service workers can be 
considered eligible for TAA, they must be in direct support of an 
affiliated TAA certified facility. This is not the case for the Bechtel 
Jacobs LLC.
    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 under certification for 
TAA.
    The petitioner appears to assert that workers laid off from Bechtel 
Jacobs are being denied eligibility for TAA because they chose to be 
employed, because if they had refused jobs at Bechtel Jacobs following 
their lay off from USEC, they would be considered eligible for TAA 
benefits.
    Worker eligibility that is determined by layoffs that occurred at a 
firm that precedes the last place of employment is determined by the 
state on an individual basis to determine if the worker(s) meet the 
various factors under the existing certification during the relevant 
period.
    Finally, the petitioner alleges that in a previous TAA 
certification of USEC (TA-W-37, 599A), a petition on behalf of workers 
at Bechtel Jacobs was withdrawn at the request of the Department. The 
petitioner further asserts that this request for withdrawal was due to 
the fact that there was already an existing TAA certification on behalf 
of workers at USEC. In essence, the union asserts that they were 
informed by the Department that workers of Bechtel Jacobs would be 
considered part of the petitioning worker group at USEC. As a result of 
this precedent, the petitioner concludes that the Department itself 
identified a connection between Bechtel Jacobs and USEC that 
established grounds for

[[Page 16838]]

petitioning worker eligibility for TAA benefits in the current 
investigation.
    The TAA termination of the previous case (TA-W-39, 052) relates to 
the discovery that, during the verification process, it was revealed 
that the Bechtel Jacobs LLC workers were employed by USEC and 
terminated during the relevant period of the USEC TAA certification and 
thus could be considered eligible under that certification. Since the 
workers were impacted at USEC during the relevant period, those workers 
may qualify as terminated workers and thus meet the eligibility 
requirements as laid off workers of USEC during the relevant period. 
Thus the decision was made by the Union to withdraw the petition at 
that time since the workers could qualify under the USEC TAA 
certification.
    Therefore, the petitioning group of workers transfer from USEC to a 
new company (Bechtel Jacobs) doesn't qualify a TAA certification under 
the name of Bechtel Jacobs. Bechtel Jacobs workers who were eligible 
for trade adjustment assistance in the USEC certification met 
eligibility requirements only because they had been separated from 
USEC, and thus the state was able to qualify the Bechtel Jacobs workers 
as separated USEC employees.
    As already indicated, since the petitioning worker group in this 
investigation was not engaged in production, but performed a service 
(environmental management services and site restoration activities) for 
an unaffiliated firm, they do not qualify for eligibility under the 
Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an 
article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
    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, DC, this 18th day of March, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8348 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M