DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,095

VERIZON SERVICES CORPORATION
CUSTOMER SERVICE CLERK
GENERAL CLERK
CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On January 15, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Verizon Services Corporation,
Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia
(subject firm). The Department’s Notice was published in the
Federal Register on February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8589).
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.

Verizon Services Corporation is engaged in the supply of
telecommunication and wireless support services.
Workers of Verizon Services Corporation’s Customer Service
Clerk, General Clerk business unit at Clarksburg, West Virginia
(subject worker group) are engaged in employment related to the
supply of customer service and support services for Verizon
Services Corporation customers/clients.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the Departments’ findings of no shift in the supply of
customer service and support services, or like or directly
competitive services, to a foreign country; no increased imports of
customer service and support services (or like or directly
competitive services) during the relevant period; that the subject
firm is neither a Supplier or a Downstream Producer; and that the
subject firm was not named by the International Trade Commission as
required by Section 222(e) of the Trade Act, as amended.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioning worker
alleged that work performed by the subject worker group was
outsourced to not only Mexico but also the Philippines and India;
that the worker group at Clarksburg, West Virginia are similarly
situated as workers who are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) under TA-W-81,968; that the workers “performed all
aspects of customer service in telecommunications” such as order
management; that “inter-company numbers were changed to Spanish”;
and that “When calling within the company for internet issues, we
spoke with Verizon workers in India.”
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
carefully reviewed the petition and its attachments, previously-
submitted information from the subject firm, the certification of
TA-W-81,968 and new information obtained from the subject firm
regarding the allegations set forth in the request for
reconsideration
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
confirmed that the subject firm did not shift to a foreign
country the supply of services like or directly competitive with
the customer service or support services supplied by the subject
workers and that, during the relevant period, the subject firm
did not import services like or directly competitive with the
customer service or support services supplied by the subject
workers. The subject firm also affirmed that the petitioning
workers voluntarily left employment from the subject firm, as
permitted by the collective bargaining agreement applicable to
the worker group at the Clarksburg, West Virginia facility.
Further, the workers and former workers eligible to apply
for TAA under TA-W-81,968 (Verizon Business Networks Services,
Inc., Senior Analysts-Sales Implementation, Birmingham, Alabama)
are not similarly-situated as workers covered by TA-W-82,095
because the services supplied by the two worker groups differ
and the petitioning workers belong to a different business unit.
Further, Verizon Business Networks Services, Inc. is not the
same company as Verizon Services Corporation.
Therefore, after careful review of the petition and its
attachments, previously-submitted information, the request for
reconsideration, the certification of TA-W-81,968 and
information obtained during the reconsideration investigation,
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 Verizon
Services Corporation, Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, 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 16th day of May, 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-82,095

VERIZON SERVICES CORPORATION
CUSTOMER SERVICE CLERK
GENERAL CLERK
CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA

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 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 October 18, 2012 on behalf of workers of Verizon Services
Corporation, Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg,
West Virginia. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related
to the supply of telecommunication and wireless support services.
The worker group supplies Customer Service Clerk and General
Clerk services.
The petitioners alleged that workers separations are
attributable to a shift in the supply of services to a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of services like or directly
competitive with the services supplied by the workers have not
increased in 2010, 2011, or during January through September
2012.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm has not shifted the supply of
services like or directly competitive with the services supplied
by the workers to a foreign country or acquired like or directly
competitive services from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm is not 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied because the workers’ firm
has not been publicly 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 Verizon Services Corporation,
Customer Service Clerk, General Clerk, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
who are engaged in activities related to the supply of


telecommunication and wireless support services to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 19th day of December, 2012


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






- 9 -