DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-53,648

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
TULSA, OKLAHOMA


Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance

The Department adopted a new interpretation regarding the
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) program in order
to provide equitable access to ATAA for worker groups whose
petitions for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) were still in
process at the time of implementation of the ATAA program on
August 6, 2003 or used an obsolete petition form that did not
allow the petitioners to indicate whether or not they wished to
request ATAA certification. Under this new interpretation,
worker groups covered by the certification of a TAA petition
that was in process on August 6, 2003 may request ATAA
consideration for the TAA certified worker group. In addition,
certified worker groups who filed TAA petitions after that date
may also request ATAA if the petition did not include an option
to apply for ATAA. The request must be made to the Department
and may be made by anyone who was entitled to file the original
petition under section 221(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended.
By letter dated June 4, 2007, five workers requested ATAA
consideration for workers and former workers of International
Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma (subject firm)
who are eligible to apply for TAA under petition TA-W-53,648.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA for the subject workers, the group
eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A) of the Trade
Act -- (1) a significant number of adversely affected workers
age 50 or over; (2) whether workers possess skills that are
easily transferable; and (3)whether competitive conditions
within the workers’ industry are adverse -- must be met. The
Department has determined in this case that the requirements
have been met.
The investigation revealed that at least five percent of
the workforce at the subject firm is at least fifty years of
age; that the subject worker group possesses skills that are not
easily transferable; and that competitive conditions within the
accounting industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained on investigation,
I conclude that the requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A) of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the
subject firm.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
"All workers of International Business Machines Corporation,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after November 26, 2002 through May 2,
2009, are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 20th day of July 2007.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-53,648

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
TULSA, OKLAHOMA


Notice of Revised Determination
On Remand

On March 30, 2007, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) remanded to the Department of Labor (Department)
for further investigation Former Employees of International
Business Machines Corporation v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court
No. 04-00079. In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2273), the Department herein
presents the results of the remand investigation regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
The initial investigation to determine the eligibility of
workers of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM),
Tulsa, Oklahoma (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) was initiated on November 26, 2003 in response
to a worker-filed petition. The Department's initial negative
determination, issued on December 2, 2003 and published in the
Federal Register on January 16, 2004 (69 FR 2622), was based on
finding that the workers did not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of
the negative determination on February 6, 2004. By letter dated
February 11, 2004, the petitioners also sought judicial review
of the negative determination. On March 30, 2004, the USCIT
granted the Department’s request for voluntary remand in order
to issue a finding pursuant to the request for reconsideration.
The Department issued a negative determination on the
request for reconsideration on March 31, 2004. The Department’s
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on
April 16, 2004 (69 FR 20644). The determination was based on
findings that the workers’ firm did not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act and that the
workers did not provide services in direct support of an
affiliated TAA certified firm.
On May 14, 2004, the Department filed its second consent
motion for voluntary remand. The Department issued a negative
determination on remand on August 2, 2004. The Department’s
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on
August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48527). The determination was based on
findings that the workers at the subject facility did not
produce or support the production of an article by IBM and were
not under the control of BP. On December 2, 2005, the USCIT
remanded the matter to the Department.
On February 6, 2006, the Department issued a second
negative determination on remand. The Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on March 2,
2006 (71 FR 10709). The Department’s determination was based on
findings that the criteria developed by the Department to
determine the extent to which a worker group engaged in
activities related to the production of an article by a
producing firm was under the control of the producing firm had
not been met. On March 30, 2007, the USCIT remanded the matter
to the Department.
The Department has determined after further review that
during the relevant period, a significant number or proportion
of the subject worker group was separated and that the subject
worker group was working in support of, and under sufficient
control of import impacted BP production facilities, whose
workers were certified as eligible for TAA.
Conclusion
Based on review of the record evidence, I determine that BP
controlled the subject worker group and that increased imports
of articles like or directly competitive with crude oil produced
by an affiliated facility which the subject worker group
supported, contributed to the total or partial separation of a
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject
facility.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
"All workers of International Business Machines Corporation,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after November 26, 2002, through two
years from the issuance of this revised determination, are
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.”

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of May 2007.


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-53,648

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
TULSA, OKLAHOMA

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.
The investigation was initiated on November 26, 2003, in
response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at
International Business Machines, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Workers at
the subject facility were engaged in accounting and application
services.
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.
Additionally, 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
International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma are
denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D. C. this 2nd day of December 2003

/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





May want to list the specific citation to the group eligibility requirements.
May want to list the specific citation to the group eligibility requirements.