Petitioner Type: Company
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 07/10/2003
Most Recent Update: 07/21/2003
Determination Date: 07/21/2003
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-52,273
RAPIDIGM, INC.
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance as a secondarily affected
worker group.
The investigation was initiated on July 10, 2003, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Rapidigm, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The workers' firm, Rapidigm, Inc.,
provides consulting services and staffing of client company's'
computer functions.
The investigation determined that the workers of the firm
cannot qualify as secondarily affected because Rapidigm, Inc. is
not an upstream supplier firm or downstream producer as described
in the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the
Trade Act, as amended by Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of
2002.
The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of
this firm or subdivision do not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The Department of Labor has
consistently determined that the performance of services does not
constitute production of an article, as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974, and this determination has been upheld in
the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Workers at the firm or subdivision may be certified only if
their separation was caused importantly by a reduced demand for
their services from a parent firm, a firm otherwise related to
their firm by ownership, or a firm related by control. Addition-
ally, the reduction in demand for services must originate at a
production facility whose workers independently meet the statutory
criteria for certification, and the reduction must directly relate
to the product impacted by imports. These conditions have not been
met for workers at this facility.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of
Paradigm, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are denied eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 21st day of July, 2003.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-52,273
RAPIDIGM, INC.
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance as a secondarily affected
worker group.
The investigation was initiated on July 10, 2003, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Rapidigm, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The workers' firm, Rapidigm, Inc.,
provides consulting services and staffing of client company's'
computer functions.
The investigation determined that the workers of the firm
cannot qualify as secondarily affected because Rapidigm, Inc. is
not an upstream supplier firm or downstream producer as described
in the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the
Trade Act, as amended by Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of
2002.
The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of
this firm or subdivision do not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The Department of Labor has
consistently determined that the performance of services does not
constitute production of an article, as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974, and this determination has been upheld in
the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Workers at the firm or subdivision may be certified only if
their separation was caused importantly by a reduced demand for
their services from a parent firm, a firm otherwise related to
their firm by ownership, or a firm related by control. Addition-
ally, the reduction in demand for services must originate at a
production facility whose workers independently meet the statutory
criteria for certification, and the reduction must directly relate
to the product impacted by imports. These conditions have not been
met for workers at this facility.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of
Paradigm, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are denied eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 21st day of July, 2003.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance