DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,493

ANANKE, INC.
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On December 1, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Ananke,
Inc., Rhode Island (subject firm). The Department’s Notice was
published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2010 (75 FR
77664). The workers at the subject firm supplied on-site
application packaging services to a financial services firm
located in Boston, Massachusetts. Therefore, the worker group
includes workers who report to the subject firm but are located
in Massachusetts; however, the worker group does not include any
on-site leased or temporary workers.
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 initial negative determination was based on the findings
that neither the subject firm nor a declining customer imported
services like or directly competitive with the application
packaging services supplied by the subject workers; that the
subject firm did not shift to/acquire from a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly competitive with the
application packaging services supplied by the subject workers; and
that workers of the subject firm are not adversely affected
secondary workers.
The request for reconsideration states that “Ananke Inc.
performed application packaging services for John Hancock . . . In
September 2009, John Hancock replaced . . . Ananke Inc. with . . .
Cognizant Technology Solutions (an offshoring/outsourcing company)”
and included support documentation.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that, during the relevant period, neither the subject
firm nor a client firm shifted to/acquired from a foreign country
the supply of services like or directly competitive with the
application packaging services supplied by the workers. Rather,
the shift in the supply of services that is alleged by the
petitioner is related to services that are neither like nor
directly competitive with those supplied by the subject workers.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Ananke,
Inc., Rhode Island.
Signed in Washington, D.C., on this 4th day of March, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,493

ANANKE, INC.
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier“ and “Downstream Producer.“ For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on October 5, 2009 on behalf of workers of Ananke, Inc.,
Providence, Rhode Island. The workers supplied on-site
application packaging services to a financial services firm located
in Boston, Massachusetts. The petitioners claimed that the client
shifted their services to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion II has not been met. The investigation
established that neither Ananke, Inc. nor the client firm shifted
services like or directly competitive with the services supplied
by the workers to a foreign country in 2007, 2008, or during the
period of January through September 2009 and neither firm
acquired or imported like or directly competitive services from a
foreign country during that period.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion II has not been met. The workers’ firm is
not a supplier or downstream producer to a firm with a TAA-
certified worker group.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the International Trade Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Ananke, Inc.,
Providence, Rhode Island, who supply application packaging
services, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 6th day of October, 2010


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHEAL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 7 -