Denied
« back to search results

TAW-80325  /  UTC Corporation (Syracuse, NY)

Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 07/29/2011
Most Recent Update: 09/23/2011
Determination Date: 09/23/2011
Expiration Date:

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,325

UTC CORPORATION
SHARED BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated July 29, 2011, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on September 23, 2011, that
was based on the finding that Criterion I has not been met because
a significant number or proportion of the workers in the firm, or
appropriate subdivision, was not totally or partially separated or
threatened with such separation. A significant number or proportion
of the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision means at least
three workers in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of UTC
Corporation, Shared Business Services Division, Syracuse, New
York (subject firm). The notice of negative determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2011 (76 FR
62452). The subject firm is engaged in activities related to the
supply of accounts payable and other contract-related services.
As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Extension
Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAAEA, to the facts
of this petition.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department determines that, with respect to
Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act, Criterion (1) has not
been met because only two workers were separated and no workers
were threatened with either total or partial separation.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been met because the workers’ firm has
not been publically identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of UTC
Corporation, Shared Business Services Division, Syracuse, New
York, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of November, 2011

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen

______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,325

UTC CORPORATION
SHARED BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

Negative Determinations 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 (“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) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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
criteria must be met:
(1) 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 such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers’
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like
or directly competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on July 29, 2011 by a New York One-Stop Operator on behalf
of workers of UTC Corporation, Shared Business Services Division,
Syracuse, New York. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities
related to accounts payable and other contract-related services.
The petitioner alleges that the workers were separated after
providing support services for the company’s overseas operations.
During the course of the investigation, information was collected
from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act,
the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been met
because a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers’ firm have not become totally or partially separated, nor
are they threatened to become totally or partially separated.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. 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 UTC Corporation,
Shared Business Services Division, Syracuse, New York engaged in
activities related to accounts payable and other contract-related
services, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are
also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of September, 2011



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



- 6 -