DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-74,700

AT&T SERVICES, INC.
REYNOLDSBURG, OHIO


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On January 21, 2011, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of AT&T
Services, Inc., Reynoldsburg, Ohio (subject firm). The Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on
February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5831). Workers supply customer care
call services.
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 was based on the findings that the
worker separations are not attributable to increased imports of
services by the subject firm or a shift in the supply of services
by the subject firm to a foreign country. Rather, the
investigation established that the worker separations are
attributable to the subject firm shifting customer care call
services to other facilities within the United States. The
investigation also revealed the firm is not a supplier or
downstream producer to a firm that employed a worker group eligible
to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged
that the subject firm has shifted services to a foreign country.
During the reconsideration, the Department received
information that shows that AT&T Services, Inc. (and not AT&T) is
the appropriate name of the firm, and the heading has been
changed to properly reflect the firm’s name.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that all of the workers who worked at the subject firm
are referred to as “Legacy T workers” and “Customer Sales and
Service Specialists (CSSS)”; that none of the services previously
supplied by the subject firm (or like or directly competitive
services) was outsourced to a foreign country; and that AT&T
managers did not train any call center managers in India. Rather,
work previously performed at the subject firm was consolidated into
three other AT&T call centers within the United States.
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 AT&T
Services, Inc., Reynoldsburg, Ohio.
Sign in Washington, D.C. on this 2nd day of May, 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-74,700

AT&T
REYNOLDSBURG, OHIO

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 6, 2010 on behalf of workers of AT&T,
Reynoldsburg, Ohio. The workers supply customer care call
services. The petitioners claimed that jobs were outsourced to a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion III has not been met because the worker
separations are not attributable to increased imports or a shift
of services to a foreign country. Rather, the investigation
established that the worker separations are attributable to the
workers’ firm shifting customer care call services to other
facilities within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion II has not been met because the 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 AT&T, Reynoldsburg,
Ohio, who supply customer care call 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 9th day of December, 2010


/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-74,700

AT&T
REYNOLDSBURG, OHIO


Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated January 6, 2011, by three petitioners
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former
workers of AT&T, Reynoldsburg, Ohio (subject firm). The
determination was issued on December 9, 2010. The Department’s
Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on
January 3, 2011 (76 FR 182). The workers supply customer care call
services.
The negative determination was based on the findings that the
worker separations are not attributable to increased imports or a
shift of services to a foreign country. Rather, the investigation
established that the worker separations are attributable to the
workers’ firm shifting customer care call services to other
facilities within the United States. The investigation also
revealed the firm is not a supplier or downstream producer to a
firm with a TAA-certified worker group.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged
that the subject firm has shifted services to a foreign country.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 21st day of January, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P






- 3 -