[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65604-65605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,056]


Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, 
Philadelphia, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated October 15, 2007, the petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on September 17, 2007 and 
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56385).
    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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers 
of Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was based on the finding that the worker 
group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of 
the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation revealed that workers of the 
subject firm performed financial services, such as invoice processing, 
general accounting, helpdesk support and travel and expense services. 
The investigation further revealed that although production of 
article(s) occurred within the firm or appropriate subdivision, the 
workers do not support this production.
    The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its 
determination and conveys that workers of the subject firm should be 
investigated on the basis of the secondary impact, and should be 
certified eligible for TAA as ``downstream producers''. The petitioner 
alleges that workers of the subject firm are ``value-added production 
workers'' because they provide the processing of payments of invoices 
for the vendors that Glaxo Smith Kline uses to produce their drugs.
    In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a 
certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance on the 
basis of the secondary impact, the workers' firm has to be a downstream 
producer (final finishing or assembly) for, a primary firm whose 
workers are certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance.
    In this case, however, workers of Glaxo Smith Kline, Shared 
Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, did not 
produce a product and did not perform finishing or final assembly of 
articles produced by a primary firm from August 2006 through August of 
2007. Financial services, such as the processing of payments of 
invoices for the vendors are

[[Page 65605]]

not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 
222 of the Trade Act. No production took place at the subject facility 
and the workers did not support production of articles at any 
affiliated firm in the relevant time period. Thus the subject firm 
workers are not eligible under secondary impact.
    The petitioner also alleges that workers of the subject firm lost 
their jobs ``due to off-shoring the services to India.''
    The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if 
it was determined that workers of the subject firm produce an article. 
However, the investigation determined that workers of Glaxo Smith 
Kline, Shared Financial Services Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
do not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

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 in Washington, DC, this 14th day of November, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-22747 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P