DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-83,231

VISA U.S.A., INC.
CLIENT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
DISPUTE ANALYSIS SUPPORT/GLOBAL SPECIALIZED SUPPORT
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
AEROTEK, INSIGHT GLOBAL, INC., NET POLARITY, POPULUS GROUP,
ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, TALENTBURST INC. AND THE ASCENT
SERVICES GROUP
HIGHLANDS RANCH, COLORADO


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated February 12, 2014, a worker 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 Visa U.S.A., Inc., Client Support Services Division,
Dispute Analysis Support/Global Specialized Support, including
on-site leased workers from Aerotek, Insight Global, Inc., Net
Polarity, Populus Group, Robert Half International, TalentBurst
Inc. and The Ascent Services Group, Highlands Ranch, Colorado
(subject firm). The determination was signed on December 27,
2013, and the Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on January 16, 2014 (79 FR 2902).
The petition states that “Debt Department was transferred
to Manila Philippines” and that workers performed “prepaid” work
following the shift (March to October 2012).
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 determination was based on the Department’s findings of
no shift in the supply of services to a foreign country, no
acquisition from a foreign country of the supply of services,
and no increased company or customer imports of services like or
directly competitive with those provided by the workers at the
subject firm. In addition, the Department did not find that the
workers are secondarily-affected workers or employed by a firm
named by the International Trade Commission, as required by
Section 222(e) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
The request for reconsideration stated that “In about
January 2011, The debit department of VISA . . . was informed
the debit fraud processing was to be transferred to a new
service provider AGIS . . . and shipped over to Manila,
Philippines cybersource by late 2011 to mid-2012.” The request
further stated that “debit fraud processing employees . . . .
would . . . be transferred and moved over to Non Fraud Prepaid –
Bank of America . . . by August 2012 and 2013.” The request
asserts that, as of late 2012, the workers ceased to perform
“fraud” work and performed “prepaid” work for Bank of America
and alleges that “corporate VISA INC. knew about the Bank of
America pull out of VISA INC. in October . . . in order to move
all debit fraud to Ban of America-Prepaid non fraud.”
During the investigation, the Department addressed the
allegations regarding a shift of services to the Philippines and
Bank of America. During the investigation, the Department
contacted the petitioners and VISA U.S.A., Inc. officials.
The worker did not supply facts not previously considered;
nor 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. Based
on these findings, the Department determines that 29 CFR
90.18(c) has not been met.
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 21st day of March, 2014

/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-83,231

VISA U.S.A., INC.
CLIENT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
DISPUTE ANALYSIS SUPPORT/GLOBAL SPECIALIZED SUPPORT
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
AEROTEK, INSIGHT GLOBAL, INC., NET POLARITY, POPULUS GROUP,
ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, TALENTBURST INC. AND THE ASCENT
SERVICES GROUP
HIGHLANDS RANCH, COLORADO

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 21, 2013 by an American Job Center on behalf
of workers of Visa U.S.A., Inc., Client Support Services,
Dispute Analysis Support/Global Specialized Support, Highlands
Ranch, Colorado (Visa U.S.A., Inc.). The workers’ firm is
engaged in activities related to the supply of dispute analysis
support services. Specifically, the workers provide services
to bank clients regarding cardholder disputed transactions
stemming from debit or prepaid cards. The subject worker group
includes on-site leased workers from Aerotek, Insight Global,
Inc., Net Polarity, Populus Group, Robert Half International,
TalentBurst Inc. and The Ascent Services Group.
The petitioner alleged that a business client pulled out
and that the workers’ jobs may have been outsourced to a
foreign country. During the course of the investigation,
information was collected from the petitioner, the workers’
firm and the firm’s primary customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that increased imports did not
contribute importantly to the worker separations. Rather, the
investigation confirmed that the client serviced by the
subject workers repositioned the jobs to other locations
within the United States.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the workers’ firm did not shift the
supply of services like or directly competitive with the
dispute analysis support services supplied by the workers 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 Visa U.S.A., Inc. is not a
Supplier or 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 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 Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Client Support Services, Dispute Analysis Support/Global
Specialized Support, including on-site leased workers from
Aerotek, Insight Global, Inc., Net Polarity, Populus Group,
Robert Half International, TalentBurst Inc. and The Ascent
Services Group, Highlands Ranch, Colorado engaged in activities
related to the supply of dispute analysis 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 27th day of December, 2013.


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



- 6 -