DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-83,070

HARRISON MEDICAL CENTER
A SUBSIDIARY OF FRANCISCAN HEALTH SYSTEM
BREMERTON, WASHINGTON


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated November 14, 2013, the Washington
State Labor Council requested administrative reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former workers of Harrison Medical
Center, a subsidiary of Franciscan Health System, Bremerton,
Washington (subject firm). On November 12, 2013 the Department
issued a negative determination applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The Department’s Notice of
determination will soon be published in the Federal Register.
The subject firm supplies acute care hospital physician office
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 applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm was based on the Department’s
findings that the subject firm did not import services like or
directly competitive with the services supplied by the workers,
and a shift in the supply of such services to a foreign country
by the workers’ firm or an acquisition of such services from a
foreign country by the workers’ firm did not occur in the
relevant time period. The investigation revealed that the
petitioning worker group did not meet the criteria set forth in
Section 222(a) and Section 222(e) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner did not
supply facts not previously considered and did not provide
additional documentation indicating that there was either 1) a
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered
or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial determination.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject
firm entered into a contract with M Modal that may have allowed
the outsourcing of services, and requested that the Department
confirm that no such outsourcing occurred.
Based on these findings, the Department determines that 29
CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
In addition, a careful review of the administrative record
reveals that the Department did confirm with both the subject
firm and M Modal that no such shift had occurred.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application 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 in Washington, D.C., this 27th day of November, 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-83,070

HARRISON MEDICAL CENTER
A SUBSIDIARY OF FRANCISCAN HEALTH SYSTEM
BREMERTON, WASHINGTON

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 September 19, 2013 on behalf of workers of Harrison
Medical Center, a subsidiary of Franciscan Health System,
Bremerton, Washington. The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the supply of acute care hospital
physician office services. The worker group supplies
transcription services.
The petitioners alleged that jobs were outsourced.
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 revealed that imports of services like or
directly competitive with the transcription services supplied
by the workers did not increase in 2011, 2012, or during
January through August 2013.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
services like or directly competitive with transcription
services to a foreign country or acquire like or directly
competitive services from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Harrison Medical Center, a
subsidiary of Franciscan Health System, Bremerton, Washington
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 Harrison Medical
Center, a subsidiary of Franciscan Health System, Bremerton,
Washington who are engaged in activities related to the supply
of transcription 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 12th day of November, 2013

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






- 4 -