DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,938

MANAGEMENT RESOURCES GROUP, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS IN THE STATES OF GEORGIA AND NEW YORK
REPORTING TO
SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On January 13, 2011, the United States Court of
International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s
request for voluntary remand to conduct further investigation in
Former Employees of Management Resources Group, Inc. v. United
States Secretary of Labor, Court No. 10-00345.
On April 15, 2010, a State of Connecticut Workforce Office
representative filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) with the Department of Labor (Department) on behalf of
workers and former workers of Management Resources Group, Inc.,
Southbury, Connecticut (subject firm). Workers at the subject
firm (subject worker group) are engaged in employment related to
the supply of asset reliability engineering consulting services.
The worker group does not include on-site leased workers.
The Department’s initial findings revealed that the subject
firm did not import services like or directly competitive with
the engineering consulting services supplied by the workers,
shift the supply of these services abroad, or acquire from a
foreign country the supply of these services, during the period
under investigation. Further, the Department surveyed the
subject firm’s major declining customers regarding imports of
engineering consulting services during the relevant time period.
The survey revealed that none of the customers imported services
like or directly competitive with those supplied by the subject
firm. Consequently, the Department determined that the group
eligibility requirements under Section 222 of the Trade Act, as
amended (the Act), had not been met.
On September 16, 2010, the Department issued a Negative
Determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable
to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
Department’s Notice of Determination was published in the Federal
Register on September 29, 2010 (75 FR 60145).
The Department did not receive a request for administrative
reconsideration.
In the complaint to the USCIT, the Plaintiffs claimed that
subject firm workers were impacted by a shift in services to a
foreign country as “[Management Resources Group, Inc.] outsourced
work previously done by Plaintiffs to a firm in India . . . .”
On January 11, 2011, the Department requested voluntary
remand to conduct further investigation to address the
Plaintiffs’ allegations, to determine whether the subject worker
group is eligible to apply for TAA, and to issue an appropriate
determination. On January 13, 2011, the USCIT granted the
Department’s Motion for Voluntary Remand.
To apply for worker adjustment assistance under Section 222(a)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following criteria must be
met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(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 if either:

(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 shift/acquisition
must have contributed importantly to the workers’
separation or threat of separation. See Section
222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover
all workers of the subject firm, or appropriate subdivision, who
were adversely affected by increased imports of services like or
directly competitive with those supplied by the subject worker
group or a shift to or acquisition from a foreign country of the
service supplied by the workers, based on the investigation of
the TAA petition.
During the remand investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed previously submitted information, obtained additional
information from the subject firm, and solicited input from the
Plaintiffs.
Based on the information collected during the remand
investigation, the Department determined that a significant
number or proportion of the workers at the subject firm was
totally or partially separated, or threatened with such
separation. Further, the Department determined that workers in
the Inventory Services Group, which performs activities related
to Maintenance, Repair, and Operations, were impacted by a shift
in the supply of services abroad and that the shift contributed
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm. The
functions of the other groups within the subject firm also
support activities related to supply of asset reliability
engineering consulting services, and are included under this
petition.
Specifically, during the period under investigation, the
subject firm shifted to India the supply of services like or
directly competitive with those supplied by the Inventory
Services Group. Information collected revealed evidence of a
foreign contract in conjunction with declines in domestic
employment.
The subject worker group includes all workers at the
Southbury, Connecticut location and employees who worked remotely
in the States of Georgia and New York and reported to Southbury,
Connecticut during the relevant time period. The subject worker
group does not include on-site leased workers.
After careful review on remand, the Department has
determined that a significant number or proportion of the workers
at the subject firm was separated. Further, the Department has
determined that a shift abroad of services like or directly
competitive with the services supplied by the subject worker
group contributed importantly to worker group separations.
Therefore, the Department has determined that the group
eligibility requirements, under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act,
have been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts during the remand
investigation, I determine that Management Resources Group, Inc.,
Southbury, Connecticut, has shifted to a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly competitive with the
engineering consulting services supplied by the subject worker
group. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:


“All workers of Management Resources Group, Inc.,
Southbury, Connecticut, including workers in Georgia and
New York who report to the subject firm, who are engaged
in employment related to the supply of asset reliability
engineering consulting services and became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after April 15,
2008, through two years from the date of this revised
certification, and all workers in the group threatened
with total or partial separation from employment on date
of certification through two years from the date of
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended.”
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th 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-73,938

MANAGEMENT RESOURCES GROUP, INC.
SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT

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 April 16, 2010 by a Connecticut state workforce official
on behalf of workers of Management Resources Group, Inc.,
Southbury, Connecticut. The workers supply engineering
consulting services for the asset reliability and maintenance
fields.
The petitioner alleges that engineering consulting services
are being acquired from a foreign country. The investigation
included obtaining data from a company official, and surveying
several of the subject firm’s declining customers.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion II has not been met because there was no
increase in imports by the workers’ firm or a customer or a
shift/acquisition abroad by the workers’ firm. Specifically, the
Department of Labor surveyed several of the subject firm’s
declining customers, who comprised a significant percentage of
subject firm sales, and none of whom imported engineering
consulting services at any point over the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers
did not produce component parts or supply a service that was
directly supplied to a firm with a currently certified TAA 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 ITC.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Management Resources
Group, Inc., Southbury, Connecticut 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 16th day of September, 2010


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




Is the cert only for those at the Southbury location or is that the only
location?
Why not?


- 11 -