DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,089

BANK OF AMERICA
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY TRADING SUPPORT
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated February 24, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on March 31, 2014,
that based on the fact that Criterion (1) has not been met.
The subject worker group is engaged in activities related to
supplying technical support services for Global Financial Services.
There are no on-site leased workers.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, with respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of
the Act, Criterion (1) has not been met because the firm did not
employ a worker group during the one-year period prior to the
petition date. A worker group means that the firm must have at
least three full-time workers during the year preceding the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petition date. 29 CFR 90
While the petition states that three workers were employed at
the subject firm, the investigation revealed that fewer than three
workers were employed by the subject firm during the one-year
period prior to the petition date. Consequently, the Department
determines that the subject firm did not meet the employment
threshold level.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied because the workers’
firm has not been publically 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, 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 Bank of
America, Global Technology Trading Support, San Jose, California,
to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of November, 2015
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,089

BANK OF AMERICA
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY TRADING SUPPORT
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade 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) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers’
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like
or directly competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.

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 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 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.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on February 24, 2014 by a state workforce official on behalf
of a worker of Bank of America, Global Technology Trading Support,
San Jose, California, who is engaged in activities related to
supplying technical support services for Global Financial Services.
The petitioner alleges that “Production has been shifted to
India. Onsite support for the San Jose CA office has been removed.”
The petition states that there are three workers at the San
Francisco location; however, subsequent information provided by the
petitioner established that the petition was filed for one worker
at the Bank of America, Global Technology Trading Support, San
Jose, California office.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act,
the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been met
because the firm did not employ a worker group during the relevant
time period. A worker group means that the firm must have at least
three full-time workers during the year preceding the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petition date. While the petition
states that three workers were employed at the subject firm, the
investigation revealed that fewer than three workers were employed
by the subject firm during the period of investigation.
Consequently, the Department determines that the subject firm did
not meet the employment threshold level.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Bank of America,
Global Technology Trading Support, San Jose, California, are denied
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also denied eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 31st day of March, 2014

/s/Del Min Amy Chen
_____________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance