DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,191

GETRONICSWANG COMPANY LLC
DBA GETRONICS
VALLEY VIEW, OHIO

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of June 2, 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
GetronicsWang Co. LLC dba Getronics, Valley View, Ohio was signed
on April 23, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on May
7, 2003 (68 FR 24503).
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
GetronicsWang Co. LLC dba Getronics, Valley View, Ohio engaged in
activities related to data processing and related services for an
unaffiliated company: LTV Steel at two work sites in Cleveland,
Ohio. The petition was denied because the petitioning workers
did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(3)
of the Act.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners state
that their layoffs are attributable to the import impact that led
to the bankruptcy, and subsequent TAA certification, of their
contracting firm. From a review of the petition in the initial
investigation, it appears that the petitioners are attempting to
allege that they are applying on a secondary basis, meeting that
eligibility criterion on the basis that they worked for a primary
impacted trade certified firm.
In order to be eligible for trade adjustment assistance, the
petitioning worker group would have to produce a product; data
processing and related services do not constitute production of
an article as defined in Section 222 of the Trade Act. In
addition, data processing and related services can neither be
construed as a component part of the steel products produced by
the trade certified firm, nor does it fit the definition of
finishing or assembling the trade certified product, thus
petitioning workers can not be considered as secondarily impacted
workers.
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