DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,197

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
RESERVATION SALES AND CUSTOMER CARE CALL CENTER
SEATAC, WASHINGTON

TA-W-82,197A

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
RESERVATION SALES AND CUSTOMER CARE CALL CENTER
SIOUX CITY, IOWA


Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

By application dated March 8, 2013, a State of Washington
workforce official and three workers requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former workers of Delta Air Lines,
Inc., Reservation Sales and Customer Care Call Center, Seatac,
Washington (TA-W-82,197) and Delta Air Lines, Inc., Reservation
Sales and Customer Care Call Center, Sioux City, Iowa (TA-W-
82,197A) (collectively referred to as “the subject firm”). There
are no on-site leased workers at the subject firm. The subject
workers are engaged in employment related to the supply of call
center services. The determination was issued on January 11,
2013. The Department’s Notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on February 8, 2013 (78 FR 8591).
Based on a careful review of previously-submitted
information and additional information received during the
reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that
the petitioning workers have met the statutory criteria for TAA.
The Department determines that a significant number or
proportion of the workers at the subject firm have been
partially or totally separated, or threatened with such
separation.
The Department also determines that worker separations at
the subject firm are related to a shift to foreign countries of
a portion of the supply of services like or directly competitive
with the call center services supplied by the subject workers,
and that the shift in the supply of these services contributed
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm.
For purposes of the Trade Act, as amended, the term
contributed importantly means a cause which is important but not
necessarily more important than any other cause.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that workers of Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Reservation Sales and Customer Care Call Center,
Seatac, Washington (TA-W-82,197) and Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Reservation Sales and Customer Care Call Center, Sioux City,
Iowa (TA-W-82,197A), who were engaged in employment related to
the supply of call center services, meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Delta Air Lines, Inc., Reservation Sales
and Customer Care Call Center, Seatac, Washington (TA-W-
82,197) and Delta Air Lines, Inc., Reservation Sales and
Customer Care Call Center, Sioux City, Iowa (TA-W-82,197A)
who became totally or partially separated from employment
on or after November 28, 2011, through two years from the
date of certification, and all workers in the group
threatened with total or partial separation from employment
on the date of certification through two years from the
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.”
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 4th day of April, 2013
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4501-FN-P
?
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,197

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
RESERVATION SALES AND CUSTOMER CARE CALL CENTER
SEATAC, WASHINGTON

TA-W-82,197A

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
RESERVATION SALES AND CUSTOMER CARE CALL CENTER
SIOUX CITY, IOWA

Negative Determinations 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 30, 2012 on behalf of workers of Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Reservation Sales and Customer Care Call Center,
Seatac, Washington (TA-W-82,197) and Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Reservation Sales and Customer Care Call Center, Sioux City,
Iowa (TA-W-82,197A). The subject worker groups are engaged in
activities related to the supply of call center functions
providing reservation sales and customer care services.
Workers are separately identifiable by location.
The petitioners allege that Delta Air continued to
outsource work to a vendor in Montego Bay, Jamaica and that
Delta has call centers in Singapore and India. Moreover, the
petitioners allege that India used to take incoming calls, but
now processes Skymiles account service requests. Lastly, the
petitioners allege that Singapore receives customer calls in
Asia. During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation did not reveal any imports of services like or
directly competitive with the call center services supplied by
Delta Air Lines, Inc. during the period under investigation.
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 call center
services to a foreign country or acquired like or directly
competitive services from a foreign country. Furthermore, the
investigation disclosed that worker separations were caused by
Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s decision to consolidate their domestic
call center operations due to an overcapacity of call center
space for their call volume. Moreover, Delta Air Lines, Inc.
is simultaneously consolidating its international call center
operations and closing down call centers in Bangkok and Japan
to consolidate operations into the Singapore call center.
Although Delta Air Lines has a contract with a vendor in
Montego Bay, Jamaica, the investigation revealed that the
company has not increased call volume to the Jamaica location
with the closures of the subject facilities. In addition, the
investigation disclosed that although Delta Air Lines had a
contract with a vendor in Mumbai, India to service customer
calls, the aforementioned practice stopped in 2008. Since
2008, the vendor in India is engaged in servicing SkyMiles
account customers. With the exception of a Delta Air Lines
call center in Hibbing, Minnesota, no other U.S. based call
center performs like or directly comparable work. Accordingly,
the closure of the subject facilities did not result in any
additional work being sent to the India location. Lastly,
although Delta Air Lines operates a call center in Singapore,
the call center primarily services international callers.
Delta Air Lines call centers in the U.S. primarily handle
calls that originate within the U.S., and international call
centers only handle calls from the U.S. if there is a high
call volume, or a request from a caller to speak to an agent
that is fluent in his/her own language. The investigation
revealed that the existence of Delta Air Lines’ international
call centers did not contribute importantly to the worker
separations at the subject facilities.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Delta Air Lines, Inc. 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 for workers of Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Reservation Sales and Customer Care Call Center,
Seatac, Washington (TA-W-82,197) and Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Reservation Sales and Customer Care Call Center, Sioux City,
Iowa (TA-W-82,197A) engaged in activities related to the supply
of call center 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 11th day of January, 2013.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




- 11 -