U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,188

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
RETAIL BANK
FRANKLIN, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,188A

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
RETAIL BANK
WEST CHESTER, ILLINOIS


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on January 25, 2013, 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 PNC Bank, National Association, Retail Bank, Franklin,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,188), and PNC Bank, National Association,
Retail Bank, West Chester, Illinois (TA-W-82,188A) (hereafter
referred to collectively as “the subject firm”). The negative
determination was issued on December 27, 2012. The Department’s
Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on
January 10, 2013 (78 FR 2290). The subject firm supplies banking
and financial services; the subject worker groups supply call
center services.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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 Department’s
findings that the subject firm did not shift to a foreign country
the call center services supplied by the workers, or like or
directly competitive services, or acquire such services from a
foreign country; that increased imports by the subject firm of the
supply of services like or directly competitive with the call
center services supplied by the workers did not contribute
importantly to the workers’ separation, or threat of separation;
and that the workers’ firm is not a supplier or a downstream
producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who are
eligible to apply for TAA.
The request for reconsideration alleges that worker group
separations at PNC’s Retail Banks in Franklin, Pennsylvania and
West Chester, Illinois are attributable to a shift of services to
foreign countries; specifically, that the subject firm’s
confirmation that there were no increased imports of call center
services in 2010, 2011, and during January through October 2012 is
“an admission on the part of PNC that it does outsource services
like or directly competitive with call center services” and that
PNC Bank has advertised for a “Project Manager for PNC Bank at Tata
Consultancy Services” in India. The request also states that the
“other facilities within the United States” to which call center
services shifted from the Franklin, Pennsylvania and West Chester,
Illinois facilities are “over 90 miles away resulting in a 2-hour
one-way commute.”
The request for reconsideration also repeated assertions in
the TAA petition, included copies of certifications applicable to
workers of several banks (TA-W-82,037; TA-W-81,995; TA-W-81,832;
TA-W-81,616; TA-W-80,440; TA-W-80,361; and TA-W-80,278), and
referred to attachments to the TAA petition.
A careful review of previously-submitted information shows
that the Department received information from the subject firm that
directly addressed the allegations of a shift in the supply of call
center services (and like or directly competitive services) to a
foreign country (including the specific allegation of the shift of
services to Canada and the United Kingdom); use of call centers
outside the United States; and increased imports of call center
services (and like or directly competitive services). The review
also shows that the Department had considered the supplemental
petition material prior to issuing the negative determination.
The petitioners did not supply facts not previously considered
or provide additional documentation indicating that there was
either a mistake in the determination of facts not previously
considered or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial determination. Based on these
findings, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After review of the applications and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 12th day of February, 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-82,188

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
RETAIL BANK
FRANKLIN, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,188A

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
RETAIL BANK
WEST CHESTER, ILLINOIS

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 November 28, 2012 on behalf of workers of PNC Bank,
National Association, Retail Bank, Franklin, Pennsylvania, and PNC
Bank, National Association, Retail Bank, West Chester, Illinois.
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the supply of
banking and financial services. The worker group supplies call
center services.
The petitioners alleged that call center services have been
shifted to a foreign country, and provided additional documentation
in support of that allegation. During the course of the
investigation, information was collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation confirmed that imports of services like or directly
competitive with the call center services supplied by the workers
have not increased in 2010, 2011, or during January through October
2012.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation confirmed 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. Rather, the
investigation confirmed that call center services performed at the
Franklin, Pennsylvania and West Chester, Illinois facilities have
been shifted to other facilities within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that PNC Bank 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 PNC Bank, National
Association, Retail Bank, Franklin, Pennsylvania, and PNC Bank,
National Association, Retail Bank, West Chester, Illinois, who are
engaged in activities related to the supply of banking and
financial 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 27th day of December, 2012


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






- 4 -