DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,414

TE CONNECTIVITY
CIS-APPLIANCES DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM KELLY SERVICES
JONESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On September 28, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of TE Connectivity, CIS-
Appliances Division, Jonestown, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to
as “the subject firm”). The workers are engaged in activities
related to the production of electronic components and the supply of
administrative support services (in support of production). The
worker group includes on-site leased workers from Kelly 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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the Department’s findings of no increased imports by the
subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with the
electronic components produced by the subject workers. Further,
aggregate imports of articles like or directly competitive with
electronic components decreased during the relevant period. The
investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of electronic components, or a like or directly
competitive article, to a foreign country or acquire such
production from a foreign country. In addition, the investigation
revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier or Downstream
Producer for a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of
workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and
that the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have not been satisfied.
In the request for reconsideration, the worker supplied new
information regarding a possible shift in the production of like or
directly competitive articles to Mexico and/or China. Specifically,
the workers alleged that they trained employees from facilities in
Mexico and China and that dies were shifted to Mexico and China.
During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm
company official confirmed that the workers of the subject firm were
engaged in activities related to the production of electronic
components, and that some of the workers performed administrative
support services in support of production.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that, although the
subject firm shifted a portion of production to Mexico and China, the
shift in production represented a negligible portion of overall
production volume and, therefore, did not contribute importantly to
worker separations or threat of separations.
The Department also obtained information regarding the
allegation of additional production being shifted to a foreign
country. Specifically, the subject firm addressed the petitioner
allegations in regard to training workers from other countries. The
subject firm confirmed that the training was part of an effort to
increase the skill level of employees across TE Connectivity. The
Department also confirmed that, during 2010 to present, the subject
firm did not shift any additional production or services, like or
directly competitive with the articles and services produced and
performed by the workers of the subject firm to Mexico, China, or any
other country, nor is a shift in production or services scheduled to
occur.
The Department also reviewed the Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) certification of affiliated worker groups and confirmed that
the subject firm does not produce any articles or perform any
services like or directly competitive with those produced or supplied
by worker groups eligible to apply for TAA.
The reconsideration investigation also revealed no increased
imports by the subject firm of articles or services like or
directly competitive with articles and services produced or
performed by the workers of the subject firm. The subject firm
also confirmed that they did not contract to have like or directly
competitive articles or services produced or performed in a foreign
country.
The subject firm confirmed that they do not supply components or
services nor do they perform any finishing services for any of TAA
certified locations; hence, the subject firm is not a Supplier, nor
does it act as a Downstream Producer for, a firm (or subdivision,
whichever is applicable) 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 that the group eligibility requirements
under Section 222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied.
Therefore, after careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has
not been met.
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 TE
Connectivity, CIS-Appliances Division, Jonestown, Pennsylvania, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 5th day of June, 2013
/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-81,414

TE CONNECTIVITY
CIS-APPLIANCES DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM KELLY SERVICES
JONESTOWN, 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), (b) or (e)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e). 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. § 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.

(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) (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.
(iii) the increase in imports 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.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of
articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they are
publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission
(ITC) as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in Section
222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 March 14, 2012 on behalf of workers of TE Connectivity, CIS-
Appliances Division, including on-site leased workers from Kelly
Services, Jonestown, Pennsylvania (subject firm). The workers’
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of electronic
components.
The petitioners allege that “Electronic Connector product line
was shipped to China to be produced for end customers.”
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm and public sources.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports by the subject firm of
articles like or directly competitive with the electronic
components produced by the subject workers. Further, aggregate
imports of articles like or directly competitive with electronic
components decreased during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of electronic components or a like or directly
competitive article to a foreign country or acquire such production
from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier of
component parts 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).
The investigation also revealed that the subject firm does not
act as a Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is
applicable) 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e)
of the Act, have not been satisfied since 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 of the facts obtained in the investigation,
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 TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances Division,


Jonestown, Pennsylvania to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of August, 2012


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






- 10 -