Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date: 04/14/2016
Filed Date: 04/17/2017
Most Recent Update: 07/03/2019
Determination Date: 07/03/2019
Expiration Date: 07/03/2021
Other Worker Groups on This Petition
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTRUSION NPI SOURCING TEAM
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
TA-W-92,826A
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
TA-W-92,826B
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM NTT DATA, INC.; INTERTEK
TESTING LABORATORIES; TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES; AND
BALAJI SOFTWARE
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Notice of Determination
Revised Determination on Remand
On January 23, 2019, the U. S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) issued an Order that remanded Former Employees of
Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building Technology
Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply
Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York v. United
States Secretary of Labor (CIT No. 17-00279) for agency
reconsideration. Honeywell International, Inc., Home and
Building Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire
Group is engaged in activities related to the production of a
variety of home security, building access control, and video
surveillance equipment. Workers of Honeywell International,
Inc., Home and Building Technology Division, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply Chain Unit,
Procurement Function, Melville, New York (“Honeywell-
Procurement”) are engaged in activities related to the supply of
procurement services in support of the Honeywell Security and
Fire Group.
Initial Investigation
On April 14, 2017, the State of New York filed a petition
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers and
former workers of Honeywell-Procurement. Based on information
obtained during the initial investigation, the Department of
Labor (Department) determined that the subject group of
workers did not meet the eligibility criteria of Sections
222(a), (b), and (e) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the
Act). With regard to Sections (a) and (b), the Department
determined that, during the relevant period, a significant
number or proportion of workers at Honeywell-Procurement was not
totally or partially separated or threatened with total or
partial separation. With regard to Section (e), the workers’
firm was not publically identified by name by the U.S.
International Trade Commission as a member of an industry
materially or seriously injured.
On July 3, 2017, the Department issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers
of Honeywell-Procurement.
Administrative Reconsideration
By application dated August 8, 2017, a former worker of
Honeywell-Procurement requested administrative reconsideration
of the Department’s negative determination. The Department
determined that the request for reconsideration did not supply
facts not previously considered or provide additional
documentation indicating that there was either a mistake in the
determination of facts that were previously considered, or a
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial determination.
On October 17, 2017, the Department issued a Negative
Determination on the Application for Reconsideration.
First Remand
On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the
USCIT, stating, in part:
“the petition was rejected because the requirement of at
least 3 people removed from the company was not met . . .
Besides myself, there were two other people let go from the same
department, Honeywell Procurement/Sourcing . . . I wish to
appeal this determination because I believe that severance pay
and Unemployment Benefits should be taken into consideration
when determining the timeframe . . . We were all receiving
paychecks from Honeywell after our official date of separation
and we were unable to collect Unemployment Benefits until those
paychecks stopped therefore petitions wouldn’t be filed until
after these dates. If the dates of when we all stopped
receiving paychecks from Honeywell was used, then I believe we
would meet the timeframe required. The petition was filed in
April of 2017, my unemployment began 6 months prior and the
other two employees unemployment began 10 months prior of the
petition being filed . . . I understand that there are
requirements that need to be met in order to qualify for
benefits under the Trade Act but I truly feel that if
Unemployment cannot begin until after all severance pay has
been received, then severance pay and Unemployment Benefits
should be considered when determining timeframe.”
The USCIT’S Order granting voluntary remand, dated February
22, 2018, directed the Department to (1) conduct additional
investigation as appropriate; (2) determine whether petitioning
workers are eligible to apply for TAA; and (3) issue the
appropriate redetermination on remand.
Based on careful consideration of previously submitted
information and new facts obtained during the first remand
investigation, the Department affirmed the finding that the
subject group of workers (Honeywell-Procurement) did not meet
the eligibility criteria of the Act and issued a Negative
Determination on Remand on June 6, 2018.
Second Remand
The USCIT’s January 23, 2019 Order directed the Department
to reconsider its regulation as applied in this matter where
petitioning group of workers consists of only three employees,
and to possibly reconsider its determination that Honeywell-
Procurement is an appropriate subdivision in the case at hand.
During the second remand investigation, the Department
gathered additional information and clarified existing
information collected from Honeywell International, Inc. The
Department requested that the workers’ firm confirm that the
information provided during the initial investigation and the
first remand investigation was correct and updated, as
necessary.
During the initial investigation and the first remand
investigation, it was determined that Honeywell-Procurement was
the appropriate subdivision and the correct subject of the
investigation. The Code of Regulations (C.F.R.) 90.2 defines
appropriate subdivision as “…an establishment in a multi-
establishment firm which produces the domestic articles in
question or a distinct part or section of an establishment
(whether or not the firm has more than one establishment) where
the articles are produced. The term appropriate subdivision
includes auxiliary facilities operated in conjunction with
(whether or not physically separate from) production
facilities.” During the second remand investigation, the
Department received information from the workers’ firm
clarifying the name of the subdivision as the Intrusion NPI
Sourcing team. Information previously submitted, in regards
to the Honeywell-Procurement group, still applied/correlated
to the Intrusion NPI Sourcing team. The investigation further
revealed that the Intrusion NPI Sourcing team was engaged in
activities related to the supply of procurement services to
the HSG Intrusion Engineering group. In the course of
clarifying the name of the subdivision and activities workers
were engaged in, the Department received information that
revealed that additional workers within the Melville, New York
location experienced worker separations during the period
relevant to the investigation: the Engineering organization,
supplying engineering services (TA-W-92,826A) and the Integrated
Supply Chain unit, supplying integrated supply chain services,
including but not limited to product assurance and quality
testing (TA-W-92,826B). C.F.R. 90.16(d) states that the
certification shall specify in detail the firm or subdivision
thereof at which the workers covered by the certification have
been employed (which need not be limited to the unit specified
in the petition)…”
Honeywell International, Inc., also provided information
regarding on-site leased workers at the Melville location - NTT
Data, Inc.; Intertek Testing Laboratories; Tata Consultancy
Services; and Balaji Software supplying supportive services to
the Integrated Supply Chain unit and Tata Consultancy Services
providing supportive services to Intrusion NPI Sourcing team and
the Engineering organization.
Based on the additional and clarifying information
received, the group of workers that is the subject of the
investigation consist of workers of Honeywell International,
Inc., Intrusion NPI Sourcing team, Honeywell Security and Fire
Group, Home and Building Technology division, including on-site
leased workers from Tata Consultancy Services, Melville, New
York (TA-W-92,826); Honeywell International, Inc., Engineering
organization, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Home and
Building Technology division, including on-site leased workers
from Tata Consultancy Services, Melville, New York (TA-W-
92,826A); and Honeywell International, Inc., Integrated Supply
Chain unit, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Home and
Building Technology division, including on-site leased workers
from NTT Data, Inc., Intertek Testing Laboratories, Tata
Consultancy Services, and Balaji Software, Melville, New York
(TA-W-92,826B).
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.
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;
(2)(B)(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/acquisition must have contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation or
threat of separation.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because 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.
Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers’
firm has shifted to a foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with the services supplied by the
workers which contributed importantly to worker group
separations at Honeywell International, Inc., Melville, New
York.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Honeywell
International, Inc., Intrusion NPI Sourcing team, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Home and Building Technology
division, including on-site leased workers from Tata Consultancy
Services, Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826); Honeywell
International, Inc., Engineering organization, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Home and Building Technology
division, including on-site leased workers from Tata Consultancy
Services, Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826A); and Honeywell
International, Inc., Integrated Supply Chain unit, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Home and Building Technology
division, including on-site leased workers from NTT Data, Inc.;
Intertek Testing Laboratories; Tata Consultancy Services; and
Balaji Software, Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826B), who are
engaged in activities related to the supply of integrated supply
chain, procurement, and engineering services, meet the worker
group certification criteria under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(b). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
“All workers of Honeywell International, Inc., Intrusion
NPI Sourcing team, Honeywell Security and Fire Group,
Home and Building Technology division, including on-site
leased workers from Tata Consultancy Services, Melville,
New York (TA-W-92,826); Honeywell International, Inc.,
Engineering organization, Honeywell Security and Fire
Group, Home and Building Technology division, including
on-site leased workers from Tata Consultancy Services,
Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826A); and Honeywell
International, Inc., Integrated Supply Chain unit,
Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Home and Building
Technology division, including on-site leased workers from
NTT Data, Inc.; Intertek Testing Laboratories; Tata
Consultancy Services; and Balaji Software, Melville, New
York (TA-W-92,826B), who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after April 14, 2016
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 9th day of July, 2019
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
PROCUREMENT FUNCTION
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
On Remand
On February 22, 2018, 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 Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building
Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group,
Integrated Supply Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New
York v. United States Secretary of Labor (CIT No. 17-00279).
On April 14, 2017, a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) was filed by the State of New York on behalf of the workers
of Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building Technology
Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply
Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York (Honeywell-
Procurement). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related
to the production of a variety of equipment for home security,
building access control, and video surveillance. The workers of
Honeywell-Procurement are engaged in activities related to the
supply of procurement services to the Honeywell Security and Fire
group. (AR 1-4, 26-33, 49-59)
The initial investigation revealed that since April 14, 2016,
Honeywell-Procurement separated only two workers. This did not
meet the criteria in Sections 222(a) and (b) of the Trade Act of
1974 (the Act), as amended, that a significant number or proportion
of the workers at Honeywell-Procurement became totally or partially
separated, or were threatened to become totally or partially
separated. Looking at the one year period prior to the petition
date, only two workers from Honeywell-Procurement were separated
from employment. For purposes of TAA, 29 CFR 90.2, defines
“significant number or proportion of the workers”, which “in a firm
(or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a work force of fewer
than 50 workers” is “ordinarily” “[a]t least three workers” (and
for a firm of 50 or more workers, the lesser of either 50 workers
or 5 percent of the workforce). (AR 49-66, 68-76)
In addition, the group eligibility criteria 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 Honeywell-Procurement did not meet the group
eligibility criteria 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 (the Department) issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of Honeywell-
Procurement, on July 3, 2017. (AR 71-76)
By application dated August 8, 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 Honeywell-
Procurement. (AR 96-98)
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 that were 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 October 17, 2017. (AR 96-
104)
On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the
USCIT. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted the following:
“The first petition was filed on my behalf and although I
was not notified of the rejection personally, it was
listed on the Department of Labor website. It stated as
best to my understanding, that the petition was rejected
because the requirement of at least 3 people removed from
the company was not met. Although it was not listed on the
original petition, the names of the employees removed
from Honeywell was given to the One Source State
representative. Besides myself, there were two other people
let go from the same department, Honeywell
Procurement/Sourcing, and they were Jerry Dipane and
Carolyn Hickey.
I then filed for a reconsideration request on August 8,
2017 which was denied on October 20, 2017. Again, to the
best of my understanding, it was rejected because the date
of the original petition filed was not within a year of the
aforementioned individuals losing their jobs. I wish to
appeal this determination because I believe that severance
pay and Unemployment Benefits should be taken into
consideration when determining the timeframe. Both Jerry
Dipane and Carolyn Hickey were let go mid to end of
December 2015 and they both received approx. 6 months of
severance pay and therefore couldn't begin to collect
Unemployment Benefits until mid to end of June 2016. I was
let go mid June 2016 and was given 3 months of severance
pay therefore didn't collect unemployment until the end of
September 2016. I reached out to the Department of Labor as
soon as I was let go from Honeywell because I was unaware
of the process and I was told there was nothing they could
truly do for me until I was no longer on Honeywell's
payroll. We were all receiving paychecks from Honeywell after
our official date of separation and we were unable to collect
Unemployment Benefits until those paychecks stopped therefore
petitions wouldn’t be filed until after these dates. If the
dates of when we all stopped receiving paychecks from
Honeywell was used, then I believe we would meet the
timeframe required. The petition was filed in April of
2017, my unemployment began 6 months prior and the other
two employees unemployment began 10 months prior of the
petition being filed.
I understand that there are requirements that need to be met
in order to qualify for benefits under the Trade Act but I
truly feel that if Unemployment cannot begin until after
all severance pay has been received, then severance pay and
Unemployment Benefits should be considered when determining
timeframe.” (Complaint filed December 12, 2017)
The USCIT’S Order granting voluntary remand, dated February
22, 2018, directed the Department to (1) conduct additional
investigation as appropriate; (2) determine whether petitioning
workers are eligible to apply for TAA; and (3) issue the
appropriate redetermination on remand.
During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed the
information provided during the initial investigation, the
reconsideration application, and the complaint received on
remand. Additionally, the Department received and reviewed
information provided by plaintiff’s counsel, and required that
Honeywell address allegations (including, but not limited to,
information provided by the State of New York, allegations from
plaintiff’s complaint and supplemental documents provided by
plaintiff’s counsel). (AR 49-66, 68-76, 96-104, 120-144, 160-260)
Workers of a firm may be eligible for trade adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsections (a), (b), or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b), and (e).
For the Department 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, may 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).
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criteria set forth in Section 222(a) and (b) of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, have not been met. During the remand
investigation, Honeywell re-submitted the originally completed ETA-
9043b, Business Data Request (Service) form and provided
supplemental information regarding the worker group in question.
The evidence shows that a significant number or proportion of the
workers of Honeywell-Procurement did not become totally or
partially separated, nor were a significant number or proportion of
such workers threatened to become totally or partially separated as
defined under 29 CFR 90.2. Furthermore, under 29 CFR 90.2 “total
separation” is defined as the “…layoff or severance of an
individual from a firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof.”
“Partial separation” is defined as, “…with respect to an individual
who has not been totally separated, that: (a) The worker's hours of
work have been reduced to 80 percent or less of the worker's
average weekly hours at the firm or appropriate subdivision
thereof, and (b) The worker's wages have been reduced to 80 percent
or less of the worker's average weekly wage at the firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof.” Looking at the one year period
prior to the petition date, only two workers of the group were
totally separated from employment with Honeywell-Procurement. Only
one worker remained at Honeywell-Procurement, and that worker is
not threatened with total or partial separation from employment.
(AR 165-230, 247-248)
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criteria set forth in Section 222(b) has not been met.
Specifically, Honeywell-Procurement is neither a Supplier nor
Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a worker group eligible
to apply for TAA. (AR 165-175, 201-219)
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criteria set forth in Section 222(e) has not been met.
Specifically, Honeywell-Procurement 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 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 Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building
Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated
Supply Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 6th day of June, 2018.
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
___________________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
PROCUREMENT FUNCTION
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated August 8, 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 Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building Technology
Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply
Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York
(Honeywell-Procurement). The negative determination was issued
on July 3, 2017. The Notice of determination was published in
the Federal Register on September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45311).
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 finding that
fewer than three workers at Honeywell-Procurement were totally
or partially separated, or threatened with such separation.
The request for reconsideration states that three workers
of Honeywell-Procurement were separated (two workers separated
in December 2015 and one worker separated in June 2016).
29 CFR § 90.16(e) Exclusions from coverage of a
certification of eligibility states: “A certification of
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance shall not apply
to any worker (1) Whose last total or partial separation from
the firm or appropriate subdivision occurred more than one (1)
year before the date of the petition; or (2) Whose last total or
partial separation from the firm or appropriate subdivision
occurred before October 3, 1974.”
The petition date is April 14, 2017. Consequently, one
worker was separated from Honeywell-Procurement during the one
year period prior to the petition date.
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 17th day of October, 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-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
PROCUREMENT FUNCTION
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
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 April 17, 2017, by the state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building
Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group,
Integrated Supply Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville,
New York (Honeywell-Procurement). The workers' firm is engaged
in activities related to the production of home and building
security equipment and systems. Workers of Honeywell-
Procurement are engaged in activities related to the supply of
procurement services to the Honeywell Security and Fire Group.
Honeywell-Procurement does not include on-site leased workers.
The petition states that the "Sourcing Department" was
"by June of 2016 . . . terminated and outsourced to Mexico."
The petition does not include additional information or
supporting documents.
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 a significant number or proportion of the workers in
Honeywell-Procurement have not become totally or partially
separated, nor are they threatened to become totally or
partially separated. 29 CFR 90 states "Significant number or
proportion of the workers means . . . At least three workers in
a firm (or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a work force
fewer than 50 workers." Fewer than three workers of Honeywell-
Procurement was totally or partially separated or threatened to
become totally or partially separated.
Finally, 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 Honeywell
International, Inc., Home and Building Technology Division,
Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply Chain Unit,
Procurement Function, Melville, New York, to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of July 2017.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTRUSION NPI SOURCING TEAM
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
TA-W-92,826A
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
TA-W-92,826B
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM NTT DATA, INC.; INTERTEK
TESTING LABORATORIES; TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES; AND
BALAJI SOFTWARE
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Notice of Determination
Revised Determination on Remand
On January 23, 2019, the U. S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) issued an Order that remanded Former Employees of
Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building Technology
Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply
Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York v. United
States Secretary of Labor (CIT No. 17-00279) for agency
reconsideration. Honeywell International, Inc., Home and
Building Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire
Group is engaged in activities related to the production of a
variety of home security, building access control, and video
surveillance equipment. Workers of Honeywell International,
Inc., Home and Building Technology Division, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply Chain Unit,
Procurement Function, Melville, New York (“Honeywell-
Procurement”) are engaged in activities related to the supply of
procurement services in support of the Honeywell Security and
Fire Group.
Initial Investigation
On April 14, 2017, the State of New York filed a petition
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers and
former workers of Honeywell-Procurement. Based on information
obtained during the initial investigation, the Department of
Labor (Department) determined that the subject group of
workers did not meet the eligibility criteria of Sections
222(a), (b), and (e) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the
Act). With regard to Sections (a) and (b), the Department
determined that, during the relevant period, a significant
number or proportion of workers at Honeywell-Procurement was not
totally or partially separated or threatened with total or
partial separation. With regard to Section (e), the workers’
firm was not publically identified by name by the U.S.
International Trade Commission as a member of an industry
materially or seriously injured.
On July 3, 2017, the Department issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers
of Honeywell-Procurement.
Administrative Reconsideration
By application dated August 8, 2017, a former worker of
Honeywell-Procurement requested administrative reconsideration
of the Department’s negative determination. The Department
determined that the request for reconsideration did not supply
facts not previously considered or provide additional
documentation indicating that there was either a mistake in the
determination of facts that were previously considered, or a
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial determination.
On October 17, 2017, the Department issued a Negative
Determination on the Application for Reconsideration.
First Remand
On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the
USCIT, stating, in part:
“the petition was rejected because the requirement of at
least 3 people removed from the company was not met . . .
Besides myself, there were two other people let go from the same
department, Honeywell Procurement/Sourcing . . . I wish to
appeal this determination because I believe that severance pay
and Unemployment Benefits should be taken into consideration
when determining the timeframe . . . We were all receiving
paychecks from Honeywell after our official date of separation
and we were unable to collect Unemployment Benefits until those
paychecks stopped therefore petitions wouldn’t be filed until
after these dates. If the dates of when we all stopped
receiving paychecks from Honeywell was used, then I believe we
would meet the timeframe required. The petition was filed in
April of 2017, my unemployment began 6 months prior and the
other two employees unemployment began 10 months prior of the
petition being filed . . . I understand that there are
requirements that need to be met in order to qualify for
benefits under the Trade Act but I truly feel that if
Unemployment cannot begin until after all severance pay has
been received, then severance pay and Unemployment Benefits
should be considered when determining timeframe.”
The USCIT’S Order granting voluntary remand, dated February
22, 2018, directed the Department to (1) conduct additional
investigation as appropriate; (2) determine whether petitioning
workers are eligible to apply for TAA; and (3) issue the
appropriate redetermination on remand.
Based on careful consideration of previously submitted
information and new facts obtained during the first remand
investigation, the Department affirmed the finding that the
subject group of workers (Honeywell-Procurement) did not meet
the eligibility criteria of the Act and issued a Negative
Determination on Remand on June 6, 2018.
Second Remand
The USCIT’s January 23, 2019 Order directed the Department
to reconsider its regulation as applied in this matter where
petitioning group of workers consists of only three employees,
and to possibly reconsider its determination that Honeywell-
Procurement is an appropriate subdivision in the case at hand.
During the second remand investigation, the Department
gathered additional information and clarified existing
information collected from Honeywell International, Inc. The
Department requested that the workers’ firm confirm that the
information provided during the initial investigation and the
first remand investigation was correct and updated, as
necessary.
During the initial investigation and the first remand
investigation, it was determined that Honeywell-Procurement was
the appropriate subdivision and the correct subject of the
investigation. The Code of Regulations (C.F.R.) 90.2 defines
appropriate subdivision as “…an establishment in a multi-
establishment firm which produces the domestic articles in
question or a distinct part or section of an establishment
(whether or not the firm has more than one establishment) where
the articles are produced. The term appropriate subdivision
includes auxiliary facilities operated in conjunction with
(whether or not physically separate from) production
facilities.” During the second remand investigation, the
Department received information from the workers’ firm
clarifying the name of the subdivision as the Intrusion NPI
Sourcing team. Information previously submitted, in regards
to the Honeywell-Procurement group, still applied/correlated
to the Intrusion NPI Sourcing team. The investigation further
revealed that the Intrusion NPI Sourcing team was engaged in
activities related to the supply of procurement services to
the HSG Intrusion Engineering group. In the course of
clarifying the name of the subdivision and activities workers
were engaged in, the Department received information that
revealed that additional workers within the Melville, New York
location experienced worker separations during the period
relevant to the investigation: the Engineering organization,
supplying engineering services (TA-W-92,826A) and the Integrated
Supply Chain unit, supplying integrated supply chain services,
including but not limited to product assurance and quality
testing (TA-W-92,826B). C.F.R. 90.16(d) states that the
certification shall specify in detail the firm or subdivision
thereof at which the workers covered by the certification have
been employed (which need not be limited to the unit specified
in the petition)…”
Honeywell International, Inc., also provided information
regarding on-site leased workers at the Melville location - NTT
Data, Inc.; Intertek Testing Laboratories; Tata Consultancy
Services; and Balaji Software supplying supportive services to
the Integrated Supply Chain unit and Tata Consultancy Services
providing supportive services to Intrusion NPI Sourcing team and
the Engineering organization.
Based on the additional and clarifying information
received, the group of workers that is the subject of the
investigation consist of workers of Honeywell International,
Inc., Intrusion NPI Sourcing team, Honeywell Security and Fire
Group, Home and Building Technology division, including on-site
leased workers from Tata Consultancy Services, Melville, New
York (TA-W-92,826); Honeywell International, Inc., Engineering
organization, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Home and
Building Technology division, including on-site leased workers
from Tata Consultancy Services, Melville, New York (TA-W-
92,826A); and Honeywell International, Inc., Integrated Supply
Chain unit, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Home and
Building Technology division, including on-site leased workers
from NTT Data, Inc., Intertek Testing Laboratories, Tata
Consultancy Services, and Balaji Software, Melville, New York
(TA-W-92,826B).
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.
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;
(2)(B)(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/acquisition must have contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation or
threat of separation.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because 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.
Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers’
firm has shifted to a foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with the services supplied by the
workers which contributed importantly to worker group
separations at Honeywell International, Inc., Melville, New
York.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Honeywell
International, Inc., Intrusion NPI Sourcing team, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Home and Building Technology
division, including on-site leased workers from Tata Consultancy
Services, Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826); Honeywell
International, Inc., Engineering organization, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Home and Building Technology
division, including on-site leased workers from Tata Consultancy
Services, Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826A); and Honeywell
International, Inc., Integrated Supply Chain unit, Honeywell
Security and Fire Group, Home and Building Technology
division, including on-site leased workers from NTT Data, Inc.;
Intertek Testing Laboratories; Tata Consultancy Services; and
Balaji Software, Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826B), who are
engaged in activities related to the supply of integrated supply
chain, procurement, and engineering services, meet the worker
group certification criteria under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2272(b). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
“All workers of Honeywell International, Inc., Intrusion
NPI Sourcing team, Honeywell Security and Fire Group,
Home and Building Technology division, including on-site
leased workers from Tata Consultancy Services, Melville,
New York (TA-W-92,826); Honeywell International, Inc.,
Engineering organization, Honeywell Security and Fire
Group, Home and Building Technology division, including
on-site leased workers from Tata Consultancy Services,
Melville, New York (TA-W-92,826A); and Honeywell
International, Inc., Integrated Supply Chain unit,
Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Home and Building
Technology division, including on-site leased workers from
NTT Data, Inc.; Intertek Testing Laboratories; Tata
Consultancy Services; and Balaji Software, Melville, New
York (TA-W-92,826B), who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after April 14, 2016
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 9th day of July, 2019
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
PROCUREMENT FUNCTION
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
On Remand
On February 22, 2018, 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 Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building
Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group,
Integrated Supply Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New
York v. United States Secretary of Labor (CIT No. 17-00279).
On April 14, 2017, a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) was filed by the State of New York on behalf of the workers
of Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building Technology
Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply
Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York (Honeywell-
Procurement). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related
to the production of a variety of equipment for home security,
building access control, and video surveillance. The workers of
Honeywell-Procurement are engaged in activities related to the
supply of procurement services to the Honeywell Security and Fire
group. (AR 1-4, 26-33, 49-59)
The initial investigation revealed that since April 14, 2016,
Honeywell-Procurement separated only two workers. This did not
meet the criteria in Sections 222(a) and (b) of the Trade Act of
1974 (the Act), as amended, that a significant number or proportion
of the workers at Honeywell-Procurement became totally or partially
separated, or were threatened to become totally or partially
separated. Looking at the one year period prior to the petition
date, only two workers from Honeywell-Procurement were separated
from employment. For purposes of TAA, 29 CFR 90.2, defines
“significant number or proportion of the workers”, which “in a firm
(or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a work force of fewer
than 50 workers” is “ordinarily” “[a]t least three workers” (and
for a firm of 50 or more workers, the lesser of either 50 workers
or 5 percent of the workforce). (AR 49-66, 68-76)
In addition, the group eligibility criteria 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 Honeywell-Procurement did not meet the group
eligibility criteria 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 (the Department) issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of Honeywell-
Procurement, on July 3, 2017. (AR 71-76)
By application dated August 8, 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 Honeywell-
Procurement. (AR 96-98)
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 that were 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 October 17, 2017. (AR 96-
104)
On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the
USCIT. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted the following:
“The first petition was filed on my behalf and although I
was not notified of the rejection personally, it was
listed on the Department of Labor website. It stated as
best to my understanding, that the petition was rejected
because the requirement of at least 3 people removed from
the company was not met. Although it was not listed on the
original petition, the names of the employees removed
from Honeywell was given to the One Source State
representative. Besides myself, there were two other people
let go from the same department, Honeywell
Procurement/Sourcing, and they were Jerry Dipane and
Carolyn Hickey.
I then filed for a reconsideration request on August 8,
2017 which was denied on October 20, 2017. Again, to the
best of my understanding, it was rejected because the date
of the original petition filed was not within a year of the
aforementioned individuals losing their jobs. I wish to
appeal this determination because I believe that severance
pay and Unemployment Benefits should be taken into
consideration when determining the timeframe. Both Jerry
Dipane and Carolyn Hickey were let go mid to end of
December 2015 and they both received approx. 6 months of
severance pay and therefore couldn't begin to collect
Unemployment Benefits until mid to end of June 2016. I was
let go mid June 2016 and was given 3 months of severance
pay therefore didn't collect unemployment until the end of
September 2016. I reached out to the Department of Labor as
soon as I was let go from Honeywell because I was unaware
of the process and I was told there was nothing they could
truly do for me until I was no longer on Honeywell's
payroll. We were all receiving paychecks from Honeywell after
our official date of separation and we were unable to collect
Unemployment Benefits until those paychecks stopped therefore
petitions wouldn’t be filed until after these dates. If the
dates of when we all stopped receiving paychecks from
Honeywell was used, then I believe we would meet the
timeframe required. The petition was filed in April of
2017, my unemployment began 6 months prior and the other
two employees unemployment began 10 months prior of the
petition being filed.
I understand that there are requirements that need to be met
in order to qualify for benefits under the Trade Act but I
truly feel that if Unemployment cannot begin until after
all severance pay has been received, then severance pay and
Unemployment Benefits should be considered when determining
timeframe.” (Complaint filed December 12, 2017)
The USCIT’S Order granting voluntary remand, dated February
22, 2018, directed the Department to (1) conduct additional
investigation as appropriate; (2) determine whether petitioning
workers are eligible to apply for TAA; and (3) issue the
appropriate redetermination on remand.
During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed the
information provided during the initial investigation, the
reconsideration application, and the complaint received on
remand. Additionally, the Department received and reviewed
information provided by plaintiff’s counsel, and required that
Honeywell address allegations (including, but not limited to,
information provided by the State of New York, allegations from
plaintiff’s complaint and supplemental documents provided by
plaintiff’s counsel). (AR 49-66, 68-76, 96-104, 120-144, 160-260)
Workers of a firm may be eligible for trade adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsections (a), (b), or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b), and (e).
For the Department 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, may 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).
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criteria set forth in Section 222(a) and (b) of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, have not been met. During the remand
investigation, Honeywell re-submitted the originally completed ETA-
9043b, Business Data Request (Service) form and provided
supplemental information regarding the worker group in question.
The evidence shows that a significant number or proportion of the
workers of Honeywell-Procurement did not become totally or
partially separated, nor were a significant number or proportion of
such workers threatened to become totally or partially separated as
defined under 29 CFR 90.2. Furthermore, under 29 CFR 90.2 “total
separation” is defined as the “…layoff or severance of an
individual from a firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof.”
“Partial separation” is defined as, “…with respect to an individual
who has not been totally separated, that: (a) The worker's hours of
work have been reduced to 80 percent or less of the worker's
average weekly hours at the firm or appropriate subdivision
thereof, and (b) The worker's wages have been reduced to 80 percent
or less of the worker's average weekly wage at the firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof.” Looking at the one year period
prior to the petition date, only two workers of the group were
totally separated from employment with Honeywell-Procurement. Only
one worker remained at Honeywell-Procurement, and that worker is
not threatened with total or partial separation from employment.
(AR 165-230, 247-248)
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criteria set forth in Section 222(b) has not been met.
Specifically, Honeywell-Procurement is neither a Supplier nor
Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a worker group eligible
to apply for TAA. (AR 165-175, 201-219)
Information reviewed during the remand investigation confirmed
that the criteria set forth in Section 222(e) has not been met.
Specifically, Honeywell-Procurement 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 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 Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building
Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated
Supply Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 6th day of June, 2018.
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
___________________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
PROCUREMENT FUNCTION
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated August 8, 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 Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building Technology
Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply
Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville, New York
(Honeywell-Procurement). The negative determination was issued
on July 3, 2017. The Notice of determination was published in
the Federal Register on September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45311).
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 finding that
fewer than three workers at Honeywell-Procurement were totally
or partially separated, or threatened with such separation.
The request for reconsideration states that three workers
of Honeywell-Procurement were separated (two workers separated
in December 2015 and one worker separated in June 2016).
29 CFR § 90.16(e) Exclusions from coverage of a
certification of eligibility states: “A certification of
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance shall not apply
to any worker (1) Whose last total or partial separation from
the firm or appropriate subdivision occurred more than one (1)
year before the date of the petition; or (2) Whose last total or
partial separation from the firm or appropriate subdivision
occurred before October 3, 1974.”
The petition date is April 14, 2017. Consequently, one
worker was separated from Honeywell-Procurement during the one
year period prior to the petition date.
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 17th day of October, 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-92,826
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
HOME AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
HONEYWELL SECURITY AND FIRE GROUP
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN UNIT
PROCUREMENT FUNCTION
MELVILLE, NEW YORK
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 April 17, 2017, by the state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Honeywell International, Inc., Home and Building
Technology Division, Honeywell Security and Fire Group,
Integrated Supply Chain Unit, Procurement Function, Melville,
New York (Honeywell-Procurement). The workers' firm is engaged
in activities related to the production of home and building
security equipment and systems. Workers of Honeywell-
Procurement are engaged in activities related to the supply of
procurement services to the Honeywell Security and Fire Group.
Honeywell-Procurement does not include on-site leased workers.
The petition states that the "Sourcing Department" was
"by June of 2016 . . . terminated and outsourced to Mexico."
The petition does not include additional information or
supporting documents.
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 a significant number or proportion of the workers in
Honeywell-Procurement have not become totally or partially
separated, nor are they threatened to become totally or
partially separated. 29 CFR 90 states "Significant number or
proportion of the workers means . . . At least three workers in
a firm (or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a work force
fewer than 50 workers." Fewer than three workers of Honeywell-
Procurement was totally or partially separated or threatened to
become totally or partially separated.
Finally, 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 Honeywell
International, Inc., Home and Building Technology Division,
Honeywell Security and Fire Group, Integrated Supply Chain Unit,
Procurement Function, Melville, New York, to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of July 2017.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance