DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,105

ERICSSON, INC.
BASE STATION AND SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on March 14, 2003, a company
official 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 Ericsson, Inc., Base Station and Systems Development
Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina was signed on
February 21, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on March
10, 2003 (68 FR 11409).
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 Ericsson,
Inc., Base Station and Systems Development Division, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina engaged in activities related to
the design and testing of software and hardware for radio base
stations. The petition was denied because the petitioning
workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section
222(3) of the Act.
The company official alleges that the initial negative
determination was based on a “misunderstanding of activities at
the subject firm.” She continues that workers at Ericsson, Inc.,
Base Station and Systems Development Division, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina were “engaged in the design and development
of base station transceivers”. The official also states that what
was delivered to the internal customer involved “precise drawings
and assembly instructions which enabled the product to be
manufactured, shipped and to fulfill orders for customers.” The
official concludes that layoffs at the subject firm are
attributed to design and development functions being transferred
abroad.
In fact, there was no misunderstanding of the nature of the
functions performed at the subject facility. Design and
development services do not constitute production within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. As a result of this, the
transfer of job functions is irrelevant.
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.
In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the
Trade Act 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 at Washington, D.C., this 6th day of May, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance