DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,085
FLUOR DANIEL
FACILITY AND PLANT SERVICES
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of June 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
Fluor Daniel, Rochester, Minnesota was signed on April 29, 2003,
and published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2003 (68 FR
25060).
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 Fluor
Daniel, Rochester, Minnesota engaged in activities related to
facility management services for an unaffiliated firm. The
petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the
Act.
Having reviewed the initial investigation, it was
established that the correct subsidiary of the affected worker
group is Fluor Daniel, Facilities & Plant Services, Rochester,
Minnesota.
The petitioner quotes a section of the petition
instructions concerning “Secondary Worker Impact” that defines
secondary workers as “employed by firms that either supply
components (emphasis provided by petitioner) to a trade affected
firm, or assemble of finish products for a trade-affected firm.”
The petitioner also cites the certification of IBM Storage
Technology Division, Rochester, Minnesota, for whom the subject
firm workers performed facility management services on a contract
basis. The petitioner appears to be implying that the petitioning
worker group is eligible for TAA as a secondary supplier to a
primary trade-certified firm.
In fact, eligibility on the basis of secondary supplier
impact concerns production workers exclusively. However, as has
already been noted, the petitioning worker group was not found to
have produced a product. In addition, facility management
services cannot be construed as a component part of the final
product produced by the trade certified firm.
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, D.C., this 13th day of June, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

___________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance