[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 6694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3008]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,374]


Manufacturers' Services, Ltd., Charlotte, North Carolina; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on December 3, 2003, 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 Manufacturer's Services, Ltd., 
Charlotte, North Carolina, was signed on November 18, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74978).
    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 Manufacturer's 
Services, Ltd. (MSL), Charlotte, North Carolina. Subject firm workers 
were engaged in support activities such as information technology, 
quality assurance and program management. The petition was denied 
because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the 
meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
    The petitioner alleges that the subject firm is the ``assembler and 
finisher of products'', whose workers were separated as a result of a 
shift of production to Canada.
    A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the 
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official 
informed that system unit assembly and testing is indeed performed at 
the subject facility. However, a company official further stated that 
workers separated during the relevant period were specifically involved 
in information technology solution, quality engineering, program 
management and data entry.
    Information technology solution, quality engineering, program 
management and data entry do not constitute production. In order for 
the worker group to be considered for TAA certification, the workers 
must be either (1) producing a product or (2) be on site in support of 
a facility whose workers are currently under TAA certification.
    The petitioner's allegation of a shift in work functions from the 
subject facility to Canada appears to stem from the fact that 
Manufacturer's Services, Ltd., is being bought by a company in Canada. 
The petitioner contends that ``this action in itself suggests that 
production has been shifted to foreign countries.''
    A company official, who was questioned on this issue, stated that 
the allegation of the shift of production from the subject facility is 
a mere speculation of the workers based on an unofficial announcement 
which was circulated among workers of the subject firm about a 
potential merger of the MSL with a Canadian-based company. However, the 
merger has never materialized and there are no plans of the merger in 
the near future. Consequently, no production has been shifted from the 
subject facility to Canada.
    The petitioner further alleges that workforce reduction at the 
subject firm is also attributed to a reduction of orders from IBM, 
subject firm's main customer, who in its turn has shifted jobs and 
production to foreign countries.
    In order to meet eligibility requirements, the petitioning worker 
group must be engaged in production; information technology, quality 
engineering, program management and data entry do not constitute 
production within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade 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.

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, DC, this 2nd day of February, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-3008 Filed 2-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-30-P