DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,548

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR DESIGN CENTER
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 9, 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
Cypress Semiconductor Design Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado
was signed on June 25, 2003, and published in the Federal
Register on July 10, 2003 (68 FR 41179).
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 Cypress
Semiconductor Design Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Subject
firm workers performed computer programming related to integrated
circuit test development of products manufactured abroad. The
petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a
service. He further quotes a section that he describes as “DOL
Strategic Goals” that imply that TAA is designed to help workers
“displaced by shifts in production to offshore locations” and
states that the shift of production to the Phillipines prompted
an alleged subsequent shift of software development performed at
the subject facility to the Philippines.
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard
to the nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The
official clarified that the majority of the software was
developed to be installed in test equipment at the Colorado
facility or to be shipped to be installed in test equipment at
other domestic facilities. A lesser portion, however, was also
required to go through a “product check requirement” in
conjunction with an internal contracting process that would be
shipped to facilities both domestic and foreign (Phillipines).
This last portion of software would be further fine tuned at the
facilities that received the software.
As a result of this clarification, it was revealed that the
software was never marketed as an external product, nor was it a
component part incorporated into production of a marketed
product. There is no evidence that the company imports
competitive software. Thus, even if the services performed by the
petitioning worker group were considered production, there is no
evidence of like or directly competitive products. The
petitioner’s allegation of a shift in work functions from the
subject facility to the Philippines appears to stem from the
transfer of a machine used to test integrated circuits for
company products from Colorado Springs to the company’s
Philippines facility. The petitioner contends that if the machine
was moved, so were the software development jobs that were
responsible for designing software for the machine.
A company official who was questioned on this issue stated
that, in affect, some software development was shifted to other
domestic facilities, but not to the Philippines. The software
previously exported by the subject firm to the Philippines is
being maintained by existing staff that has always performed fine
tuning on existing software. The official concluded that layoffs
at the subject firm, as well as other company facilities
including the one in the Philippines, are attributable to a
general downturn in the semiconductor industry.


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 30th day of July, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

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