DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,536

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
ALTOONA EXPRESS MARKET CLAIM OFFICE
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM KELLY SERVICES
ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated June 7, 2010, 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 Allstate Insurance Company, Altoona Express Market
Claim Office, including on-site leased workers from Kelly
Services, Altoona, Pennsylvania. The negative determination was
issued on May 7, 2010, and the Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30073).
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 determination applicable the subject workers
was based on the findings that the subject firm did not import
services like or directly competitive with insurance claim
services during the relevant period of the investigation or
shift service abroad during the same period; and that the
workers did not supply a service that was used by a firm that
employed a worker group currently eligible to apply for TAA.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated
that she had “verbal confirmation from the Altoona management
team that the services being provided by the call center(s)
operating in India are directly competitive to the services that
were provided by” the subject facility.
After this office received the request for reconsideration,
the investigator obtained from the petitioner the name of the
subject firm manager who was alleged to be able to confirm the
shift to India. However, the official confirmed that insurance
claim services provided by the subject facility were distributed
to other domestic offices of the subject firm and were not
shifted abroad.
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 22nd day of June, 2010

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

FN-4510-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,536

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
ALTOONA EXPRESS MARKET CLAIM OFFICE
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM KELLY SERVICES
ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA

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.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the
President by the International Trade Commission
under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
affirmative determination described in paragraph
(1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under
section 202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on February 22, 2010 on behalf of workers of Allstate
Insurance Company, Altoona Express Market Claim Office,
Altoona, Pennsylvania (Allstate). The worker group includes
on-site leased workers from Kelly Services. The workers are
engaged in activities related to the provision of insurance
claim services.
The petition alleges that Allstate has opened customer call
centers in India that affected the separated worker group. The
investigation included a request for data from the subject
firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Criterion II has not been met. The
subject firm did not import services like or directly
competitive with insurance claim services during the relevant
period of the investigation, nor shift service abroad during
the same period.
Criterion III has not been met because the separations
were not related to a foreign shift in service, acquisition of
service, or an increase in imports. An Allstate official
stated that insurance claim services provided by the Altoona
site was distributed to other domestic Express Claims Offices,
not shifted abroad.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Criterion 2 has not been met. The
workers did not supply a service that was used by a firm with
a Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) certification.
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 Allstate Insurance
Company, Altoona Express Market Claim Office, Altoona,
Pennsylvania, including on-site leased workers from Kelly
Services, who are engaged in activities related to the provision
of insurance claim 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 7th day of May, 2010


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



- 8 -