DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,697

AT&T CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T INC.
BUSINESS BILLING CUSTOMER CARE
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On October 23, 2013, the Department of Labor (Department) issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of AT&T Corporation, a subsidiary of AT&T Inc., Business Billing Customer Care, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as “the subject firm”). Workers at the subject firm were engaged in activities related to the supply of billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution 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 negative determination was based on the Department’s findings that there no increased imports, during the relevant period, of services like or directly competitive with the billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution services supplied by the subject workers; the subject firm has not shifted the supply of services like or directly competitive with the billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution services supplied by the subject workers to a foreign country or acquired the supply of billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution services from a foreign country; the worker separations are attributable to a shift of billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution services to other locations within the United States; the subject firm is not a Supplier to, or act as a 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 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.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject firm has shifted billing services, ordering services, and/or customer support services to Slovakia, Mexico, India, and/or the Philippines. The worker requesting reconsideration also supplied additional information in regard to employment figures at the aforementioned locations and subsequently submitted multiple documents and attachments related to the afore-mentioned allegations.
During the course of the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm addressed the afore-mentioned allegations and confirmed the meaning of multiple documents and attachments provided by the worker requesting reconsideration.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received information which confirmed that the subject firm has not imported, during the relevant period, any services like or directly competitive with billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution services supplied by workers of the subject firm; the subject firm did not shift the supply of services like or directly competitive with the billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution services supplied by workers of the subject firm, and; the subject firm did not acquire from a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with the billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution services supplied by workers of the subject firm.
Additional information obtained from the subject firm during the reconsideration investigation revealed that the subject firm does not import any finished products that incorporate services like or directly competitive with the services supplied by the subject firm.
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 AT&T Corporation, a subsidiary of AT&T Inc., Business Billing Customer Care, Pittsburgh, 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 7th day of May, 2014
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,697

AT&T CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T INC.
BUSINESS BILLING CUSTOMER CARE
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated July 8, 2013, the Communication
Workers of America Union, Local 13550, requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former workers of AT&T Corporation, a
subsidiary of AT&T Inc., Business Billing Customer Care,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (subject firm). The determination was
issued on June 6, 2013. The Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2013 (78 FR
39776). Workers at the subject firm were engaged in activities
related to the supply of billing inquiry and billing dispute
resolution services.
The negative determination was based on the Department’s
findings, with respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended (the Act), of no increased imports,
during the relevant period, of services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the subject workers.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
initial investigation revealed that the subject firm has not
shifted the supply of services like or directly competitive
with the billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution
services supplied by the workers to a foreign country or
acquired the supply of like or directly competitive services
from a foreign country.
Rather, the initial investigation confirmed that the
worker separations are attributable to a shift of the services
supplied by Business Billing Customer Care to other locations
within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the initial
investigation revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier
to, or act as a 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 initial investigation revealed that 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.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject
firm has shifted billing services, ordering services, and/or
customer support services to Slovakia, Mexico, India, and/or the
Philippines. The petitioner also supplied additional information
in regard to employment figures at the aforementioned locations.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct
further investigation to determine if the workers meet the
eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that
the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of
the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application
is, therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 23rd day of October, 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-82,697

AT&T CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T INC.
BUSINESS BILLING CUSTOMER CARE
PITTSBURGH, 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 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 April 29, 2013 by a Communications Workers of America
Union representative on behalf of workers of AT&T Corporation, a
subsidiary of AT&T Inc., Business Billing Customer Care,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the supply of telecommunication and
wireless support services. The worker group supplies billing
inquiry and billing dispute resolution for AT&T business
customers.
The petitioner alleged that worker separations are
attributable to a shift in the supply of services to a foreign
country. During the course of the investigation, information
was collected from the workers’ firm and the petitioner.
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 2011, 2012, or during January through
March 2013.
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.
Rather, the investigation confirmed that the worker
separations are attributable to a shift of the services
supplied by Business Billing Customer Care to other locations
within the United States.
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 AT&T Corporation, a
subsidiary of AT&T Inc., Business Billing Customer Care,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who are engaged in activities related
to the supply of billing inquiry and billing dispute resolution
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 6th day of June, 2013


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





- 9 -