DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-63,254

TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC.
GLOBAL CLINICAL PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES GROUP
HORSHAM, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated May 26, 2008, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 9, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2008 (73 FR 29783).
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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for
workers of Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Global Clinical Professional
Resources Group, Horsham, Pennsylvania was based on the finding
that the worker group does not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner states that Global Clinical Professional
Resource Group (GCPRG) “belonged to the Innovative Research and
Development division, which had no involvement in the
manufacturing process.” The petitioner also stated that GCPRG
was strictly dealing with the clinical trials and with the
clinical data collected from the American population. The
petitioner further infers that employment at the subject firm was
negatively impacted by the outsourcing of some functions from the
subject facility to India.
The initial investigation revealed that the workers of Teva
Neuroscience, Inc., Global Clinical Professional Resources Group,
Horsham, Pennsylvania are engaged in operations in support of the
conduct of clinical trials of pharmaceutical products
manufactured abroad, including database management, clinical
quality control, and administration. These functions, as
described above, are not considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The allegation of a shift to another country might be
relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm
produced an article. Since the investigation determined that
workers of the subject firm do not produce an article, there can
not be imports nor a shift in production of an “article” abroad
within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974 in this instance.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 in Washington, D.C., this 9th day of June 2008.

/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-63,254

TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC
GLOBAL CLINICAL PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES GROUP
HORSHAM, PENNSYLVANIA

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade 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 April 28, 2008 in response
to a petition filed by workers of Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Global
Clinical Professional Resources Group, Horsham, Pennsylvania. The
workers performed operations in support of the conduct of clinical
trials of pharmaceuticals produced abroad, including database
management, clinical quality control, and administration.
The investigation revealed that Teva Neuroscience, Inc.,
Global Clinical Professional Resources Group, Horsham,
Pennsylvania, does not produce an article within the meaning of
Section 222(a)(2) of the Act. In order to be considered eligible
to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade
Act of 1974, the worker group seeking certification (or on whose
behalf certification is being sought) must work for a "firm" or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically and
there must be a relationship between the workers' work and the
article produced by the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision.
The clinical trail support workers described above do not support a
firm or appropriate subdivision that produces an article
domestically and thus the worker group cannot be considered import
impacted or affected by a shift in production of an article.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Teva Neuroscience,
Inc., Global Clinical Professional Resources Group, Horsham,
Pennsylvania are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also
denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 9th day of May 2008


/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






- 5 -