DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-92,518

FIFTH THIRD BANK
GLOBAL TRANSACTION BANKING
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
CINCINNATI, OHIO

Notice of Revised Determination
on Remand

On August 27, 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the U.S. Department of Labor’s motion for
voluntary remand to conduct further investigation in Former
Employees of Fifth Third Bank v. United States Secretary of
Labor (Court No. 17-00258).
On January 4, 2017, a petition for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) was filed by the State of Florida on behalf of
the workers of Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral
Gables, Florida. The workers were engaged in activities related
to the supply of treasury management, capital raising, foreign
exchange and related products and services.
The initial investigation revealed that since December 21,
2015, Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables,
Florida, separated only one worker. This did not meet the
requirement in Sections 222(a) and (b) of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, that a significant number or proportion of the
workers at Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions,
Coral Gables, Florida, became totally or partially separated, or
were threatened to become totally or partially separated.
Because Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions,
Coral Gables, Florida did not meet the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(a), Section 222(b), or Section
222(e), the petition for group eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance was denied.
The Department of Labor (Department) issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers
of Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, Coral
Gables, Florida, on April 6, 2017.
By application dated May 18, 2017, a former worker
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers
of Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables,
Florida. The request for reconsideration did not supply facts
not previously considered or 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 Department
issued a Negative Determination on the Application for
Reconsideration on August 13, 2017.
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the
USCIT. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted that the scope of
the investigation (i.e., Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial
Institutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third
Bancorp, Coral Gables, Florida) is too narrow.
The USCIT’S December 15, 2017 Order granting voluntary
remand directed the Department to (1) conduct additional
investigation as appropriate; (2) determine whether petitioning
workers are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance;
and (3) issue the appropriate redetermination on remand.
During the first remand investigation, the Department
reviewed the contents of the information provided during the
initial investigation and the information provided within the
reconsideration application and Complaint; received and
reviewed information provided by Plaintiff’s counsel; and
required that the subject firm address specified allegations
(including, but not limited to, allegations from Plaintiff’s
Complaint and Supplemental Documents provided by Plaintiff’s
Counsel).
During the first remand investigation, the Department
revised the relevant worker group to consist of workers and
former workers of Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Cincinnati,
Ohio (Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, Cincinnati,
Ohio). Workers of Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking,
Cincinnati, Ohio are engaged in activities related to the supply
of global transaction services through two different groups.
Through the Global Financial Institutions Group, the subject
workers focus on developing relationships with non-U.S. banks to
provide treasury management, capital raising, foreign
exchange and related products and services; through the Trade
Services Group, the subject workers focus on delivering trade
finance, working capital and other international solutions to
existing and prospective clients of the bank. The subject
worker group includes workers who supply Global Financial
Institutions Group and/or Trade Services Group.
Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, Cincinnati,
Ohio does not include on-site leased workers and may include
teleworkers (i.e. remote workers or home-based workers).
Based on information received during the first remand
investigation, the Department determined that the criterion set
forth in Section 222(a)(1) and Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the
Act were met; however, the Department determined that the
criteria set forth in neither Sections 222(a)(2)(A)(ii),
222(a)(2)(B), 222(b)(2), nor 222(e) have been met.
The Department issued a Negative Determination on Remand on
May 15, 2018.
To address Plaintiff’s concerns regarding Fifth Third
Bank, Global Transaction Banking’s customers and to investigate
the possible impact of external customers’ import activity
(limited to services like or directly competitive to global
transaction services), the Department agreed to a second
voluntary remand.
The USCIT’S August 27, 2018 Order granting voluntary remand
directed the Department to (1) conduct further investigation, as
appropriate; (2) determine whether the petitioning workers are
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance; and (3) issue
the appropriate redetermination on remand.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), are satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers’ firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and

(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely; and

(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by
such firm have increased; and
(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.

During the second remand investigation, the Department
sought additional information from the subject firm regarding
Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking’s operations and
revenue sources and conducted a survey of the major declining
customers of Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking
regarding import purchases of global transaction services
(including like or directly competitive services).
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number
or proportion of workers in Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction
Banking, Cincinnati, Ohio have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially
separated.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) has been met because sales of Fifth
Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, Cincinnati, Ohio have
decreased absolutely.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has been met because customer
imports of services like or directly competitive with the global
transaction services supplied by Fifth Third Bank, Global
Transaction Banking, Cincinnati, Ohio have increased during the
relevant period when compared to the representative base period.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because the increased
imports contributed importantly to worker group separations and
sales declines at Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained during the initial,
first remand, and the second remand investigations, I determine
that workers and former workers of Fifth Third Bank, Global
Transaction Banking, Cincinnati, Ohio, who are engaged in
activities related to the supply of global transaction 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 Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Cincinnati,
Ohio, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after December 21, 2015 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 in Washington, D.C. this 6th day of December, 2018

/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-92,518

FIFTH THIRD BANK
GLOBAL TRANSACTION BANKING
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
CINCINNATI, OHIO

Notice of Negative Determination
On Remand

On December 15, 2017, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s request for
voluntary remand to conduct further investigation in Former
Employees of Fifth Third Bank v. United States Secretary of Labor
(Court No. 17-00258). AR 226-227
On January 4, 2017, a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) was filed by the State of Florida on behalf of the workers of
Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables, Florida. The
workers were engaged in activities related to the supply of
treasury management, capital raising, foreign exchange and related
products and services. AR 1-13, 42-44, 52-54
The initial investigation revealed that since December 21,
2015, Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables, Florida,
separated only one worker. This did not meet the requirement in
Sections 222(a) and (b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, that
a significant number or proportion of the workers at Fifth Third
Bank, Global Financial Institutions, Coral Gables, Florida,
became totally or partially separated, or were threatened to become
totally or partially separated. Section 90.2 of 29 CFR defines
“significant number or proportion of the workers” as, “ordinarily”
for a firm of fewer than 50 workers, “at least three workers” (and
for a firm of 50 or more workers, the lesser of either 50 workers
or 5 percent of the workforce). In addition, the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act, were not 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. Because Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions,
Coral Gables, Florida did not meet the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(a), Section 222(b), or Section
222(e), the petition for group eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance was denied. AR 1-13, 42-44, 52-54
The Department of Labor (Department) issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of Fifth Third
Bank, Global Financial Institutions, Coral Gables, Florida, on
April 6, 2017. AR 61-68
By application dated May 18, 2017, a former worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of Fifth Third
Bank, Global Financial Institutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables, Florida. AR 88-200
The request for reconsideration did not supply facts not
previously considered or 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 Department issued a Negative Determination on
the Application for Reconsideration on August 13, 2017. AR 201-203
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the
USCIT. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted that the scope of the
investigation (i.e., Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial
Institutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp,
Coral Gables, Florida) is too narrow. AR 228-315
The USCIT’S Order granting voluntary remand, dated December
15, 2017, directed the Department to (1) conduct additional
investigation as appropriate; (2) determine whether petitioning
workers are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance; and
(3) issue the appropriate redetermination on remand.
During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed the
contents of the information provided during the initial
investigation and the information provided within the
reconsideration application and Complaint, received and reviewed
information provided by Plaintiff’s Counsel, and required that the
subject firm address allegations (including, but not limited to,
allegations from Plaintiff’s Complaint and Supplemental Documents
provided by Plaintiff’s Counsel).
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. § 2272(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; AND
(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 also, alternatively, must be certified as
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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

During the initial investigation and the review of the
application for reconsideration, the worker group was identified to
be Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables, Florida.
During the remand investigation, however, the Department revised
the relevant worker group to be Fifth Third Bank, Global
Transaction Banking, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third
Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio. AR 317-326, 351-360, 427-432
In revising the relevant worker group to Fifth Third Bank,
Global Transaction Banking, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth
Third Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Department reviewed all
material received during the initial investigation and
reconsideration application review process, Plaintiff’s Complaint,
and the remand investigation. Importantly, to address the concerns
that Plaintiff presented within the Complaint, the Department
requested and received an organizational chart from the subject
firm and sought clarification from the subject firm to better
understand the organizational relationships involving the
Plaintiff. Based on new and additional information, the Department
found it appropriate to revise the appropriate worker group to be
Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio. This revised
worker group includes the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Department
sent the subject firm a new Business Data Request to be completed.
The new information from the workers’ firm clarified that the
worker group includes workers within the U.S. reporting to Fifth
Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, Cincinnati, Ohio.
The subject of the remand investigation is Fifth Third Bank,
Global Transaction Banking, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth
Third Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio (subject worker group). The
workers are engaged in activities related to the supply of global
transaction services through two different groups. Through the
Global Financial Institutions Group, the workers focus on
developing relationships with non-U.S. banks to provide treasury
management, capital raising, foreign exchange and related products
and services; through the Trade Services Group, the workers focus
on delivering trade finance, working capital and other
international solutions to existing and prospective clients of the
bank (“global transaction services”). The workers within Fifth
Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking are not separately
identifiable by function. The subject worker group does not
include leased workers. AR 317-326, 358-359, 427-432
Information received during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act has
been met. The data shows that a significant number or proportion
of workers at Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio
are totally or partially separated, or threatened with such
separation. AR 427-429
Information received during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criterion set forth in Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act
has been met because the sales of global transaction services
supplied by Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio have
decreased. AR 427-429
However, information received during the remand investigation
confirmed that none of the certification criteria in Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(ii), 222(a)(2)(B), 222(b)(2), or 222(e) have been met.
The criterion in Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act was not
met because the workers’ firm, customer, and aggregate U.S.
imports of services like or directly competitive with global
transaction services supplied by Fifth Third Bank, Global
Transaction Banking, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third
Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio did not increase during the relevant
period. Specifically, the remand investigation revealed that the
firm did not import services like or directly competitive with the
services supplied by Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking.
Further, the remand investigation revealed that the workers’ firm
did not import articles produced directly using services like or
directly competitive with the services supplied by the workers of
Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking. AR 427-431, 461-471
During the remand investigation, the Department required the
subject firm to address multiple allegations and documents
including, but not limited to, allegations of imports. The
Department determined that the “imports” and “import discs”
identified within the exhibit sent to the subject firm are not like
or directly competitive with the global transaction services
supplied by the workers of the subject firm. Specifically, the
subject firm stated “The Bank does not import/export goods or
services. The word ‘import’ on the document you sent refers to
import letters of credit that customers use in their business to
facilitate the importing of goods.” The Department did not conduct
customer surveys due to the fact that the subject firm does not
have direct customers; rather, the subject firm provides ancillary
services that support other branches of the firm (i.e., internal
services). Information in regard to U.S. aggregate imports of
global transaction services was not considered since this
information is not available. AR 530-548, 551-576, 589-593
The criterion in Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act was not met
because the workers’ firm did not shift the supply of global
transaction services or a like or directly competitive service to
a foreign country or acquire global transaction services or a
like or directly competitive service from a foreign country. The
subject firm also addressed the alleged shift in services to
specific foreign countries. The subject firm provided information
that confirmed that the firm did not shift or acquire services like
or directly competitive with the services supplied by the subject
worker group to any other foreign country. AR 427-430, 461-465,
530-548
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the remand
investigation revealed that Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction
Banking, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp,
Cincinnati, Ohio, is neither a Supplier nor 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). AR 427-430, 461-465, 530-548, 579-608, 612-628
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, were not met 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.
Allegations presented by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel
which are outside the scope of the Act were not addressed in the
remand investigation. Specifically, the “the trend of foreign
banks moving into the correspondent banking space” and the
general trend described of correspondent banking services
shifting to foreign countries do not constitute a shift or
acquisition of services by Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction
Banking, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp,
Cincinnati, Ohio. AR 88-200, AR 228-315, 433-460
Based on a careful review of previously submitted information
and new information obtained during the remand investigation, the
Department reaffirms that the requirements of Section 222 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, as amended, have not been met.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration of the administrative record, I
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and
former workers of Fifth Third Bank, Global Transaction Banking, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 15th day of May, 2018

/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-92,518

FIFTH THIRD BANK
GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated May 18, 2017, a worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers
of Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables, Florida
(herein known as “Fifth Third Bank-Global Financial
Institutions”). The determination was signed on April 6, 2017.
The determination was based on the Department’s finding that a
significant number or proportion of the workers at Fifth Third
Bank-Global Financial Institutions have not become totally or
partially separated, nor are they threatened to become totally
or partially separated because fewer than three workers of Fifth
Third Bank-Global Financial Institutions have been totally or
partially separated or threatened with total or partial
separation.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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
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 request for reconsideration asserts that the negative
determination was based on a mistake in the determination of
facts previously considered. Specifically, the requests asserts
that the scope of the investigation is too narrow (“there were
no other workers in my specific department at the Coral Gables
location . . . others were in locations around the country”).
The determination was not based on the finding that the
Global Financial Institutions unit of Fifth Third Bank is not a
valid worker group. Rather, the determination was based on the
finding that fewer than three workers were totally or partially
separated, or threatened with such separation, from the Global
Financial Institutions unit of Fifth Third Bank during the one
year prior to the petition date (December 21, 2016).
29 CFR 90.16(e) states “A certification of eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance shall not apply to any worker:
(1) Whose total or partial separation from the firm or
appropriate subdivision occurred more than one (1) year before
the date of the petition.”
The petitioner 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 13th day of August, 2017

/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-92,518

FIFTH THIRD BANK
GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
CORAL GABLES FLORIDA


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 three 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 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; AND
(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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer." 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.

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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).


The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on December 21, 2016 by a state workforce office on behalf
of a worker of Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral
Gables, Florida (Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial
Institutions). The workers' firm is engaged in activities
related to commercial banking services. The workers of Fifth
Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions are engaged in
activities related to the supply of treasury management, capital
raising, foreign exchange and related products and services.
The petition states "Escalation of European, Canadian and
other non-US Banks advancing in correspondent banking market and
displacing US financial institution providers of these services.
Examples of US banks that have been displaced partially or fully
in recent years (Citibank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP
Morgan Chase, Fifth Third, Regions Bank, SunTrust, PNC, BB&T,
Zions, Bank of New York, American Express International Bank, US
Bank, Comerica, Huntington Bank, M&T Bank, Laredo National Bank,
US Century Bank." The petition included additional information.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petitioner and 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 a significant number or proportion of the workers at
Fifth Third Bank, Global Financial Institutions, Coral Gables,
Florida, have not become totally or partially separated, nor are
they threatened to become totally or partially separated.
Specifically, fewer than three workers of Fifth Third Bank,
Global Financial Institutions, Coral Gables, Florida, have been
totally or partially separated or threatened with total or
partial separation. 29 CFR 90.2 defines "significant number or
proportion of the workers."
The group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of
the Act, have not been satisfied because Criterion (1) has not
been met since 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 Fifth Third Bank,
Global Financial Institutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Fifth Third Bancorp, Coral Gables, Florida, 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 April 2017.

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