Petitioner Type: Union
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 03/04/2019
Most Recent Update: 03/17/2022
Determination Date: 07/01/2019
Expiration Date:
Other Worker Groups on This Petition
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP
RETENTION CENTER
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T FINANCE BILLING OPERATIONS
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
NETWORK OPERATION CENTER
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT
Notice of Negative Determination on Remand
On May 4, 2021, the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) issued an opinion and order remanding the workers' appeal
to the Department of Labor ("the Department") to 1) address
workers' evidence and to weigh it against AT&T's evidence in
determining whether workers' job losses were caused by a shift in
those services to, or an acquisition of those services from,
foreign countries, as described in 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2); and 2) in
regards to "non-certified" evidence provided by AT&T, either find
that it "has a reasonable basis for determining that such
information is accurate and complete without being certified," and
explain the basis for that finding, or else require AT&T to certify
its evidence, and 3) if, on remand, Labor finds workers' evidence
convincing, the Department must address whether the shift to, or
acquisition from, foreign countries "contributed importantly" to
workers' job losses as described in 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former
Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of
Labor (Court No. 20-00075).
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 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).
During the course of both the initial investigation and the
reconsideration investigation, information was collected from the
workers' firm and the petitioner.
Initial Investigation
On March 4, 2019, a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) was filed by Communications Workers of America (CWA), Local
4123 on behalf of the workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D).
The subject workers were engaged in activities related to the
supply of telecommunications services. Specifically, the workers
covered under TA-W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A, and TA-W-94,578B
provided call center operations support services, the workers
covered under TA-W-94,578C provided billing support services,
and the workers under TA-W-94,578D provided network operations
center support services. AR1-4, 14-15.
In support of its petition, Communications Workers of
America, Local 4123 submitted a copy of the Communications Workers
of America's "AT&T 2018 Jobs Report," referenced in each of the
petitions, which describes job losses by AT&T call center employees
throughout the U.S. and makes general assertions that work is being
moved to non-U.S. locations. Closures are reported in various U.S.
locations, including Indianapolis, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Michigan,
and Appleton, Wisconsin. AR20, 22.
As it relates to the petitioner's allegation (that work was
being offshored from the specific five locations at issue), the
jobs report provided a narrative that offshoring of call center
work was generally occurring within AT&T at large, but did not
present evidence that such a shift occurred with respect to any of
the five locations at issue in this appeal. The CWA report also
reports one instance of a return of call center work to the U.S.
from offshore locations. AR14-23.
1) Analysis of workers' evidence vs. AT&T's evidence
Although the AT&T 2018 Jobs Report provided by the CWA, Local
4123 is not explicitly named in the Department's initial
investigation determination, its substance (as it relates to TAA
group eligibility criteria), including the issue of whether or not
work was shifted from any of the AT&T locations under the
investigation to any non-U.S. locations, was addressed in the
initial investigation.
The petitioner submitted an additional allegation, AR114,
implying that workers in Jamaica were performing the same type of
call center work as workers at AT&T's Appleton, Wisconsin, office.
The Department investigated this claim and determined, based on
additional information provided in writing by AT&T's Assistant
Vice President, Senior Legal Counsels, AR-121-128, that workers in
Jamaica did not perform the same type of call center work as
workers at the Appleton center. The work performed by the Appleton
workers remained within the United States.
2) Credibility of AT&T's information
In its responses to the Business Data Request (BDR) form for
each of the five respective locations, AT&T affirmed, under penalty
of law, that work at those specific locations was being
consolidated into other U.S. centers and not being shifted to a
foreign country or acquired from a foreign country. AR53, 63, 73,
92, 106. All BDR responses were provided under a signed affirmation
and acknowledgement of the applicable penalties under Federal law
for knowingly providing false information. AR57, 67, 76, 98 and
112.
3) Initial Determination
After addressing all worker group eligibility criteria for
TAA certification, the Department issued a negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance,
applicable to workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D), on July 1, 2019. AR154-162
The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45531).
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated July 25, 2019, the Communications
Workers of America, Local 4123 requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance,
applicable to workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D). AR174.
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 misinterpretation of
facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The request for reconsideration was granted. The Department's
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration was issued on August 30, 2019 and published in the
Federal Register on September 24, 2019 (84 FR 50076). AR175-178.
Reconsideration Investigation
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
pursued additional lines of questioning with AT&T pertaining to
the applicant's allegation(s) and collected additional
information to determine whether 1) any of the work at the five
subject locations was shifted to another country or countries
or acquired from a foreign country, and 2) the group of workers
or any portion of any of such a group meet any of the worker
group eligibility criteria for TAA certification. AR202-204,
206-208, 259-261, 267-268, 273-275, 292-293, 305-306, 317-319,
326-327. The additional information collected from AT&T during
the reconsideration investigation revealed that the services
supplied by the workers were not shifted to a foreign country
or acquired from a foreign country. In response to specific
questions based upon the petitioner's allegations, AT&T reported
that the work at each of the five subject locations remained
within the United States. Additionally, the remaining criteria
for certification were not met. AR250-261, 266-267, 272-273,
295-297, 300-303, 307-311, 325, 341-342, 349-350.
On January 21, 2020, the Department issued a negative
determination on reconsideration regarding eligibility to apply
for TAA applicable to workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D) based on the finding that the
worker group eligibility criteria set forth in Section 222 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, were not met. AR382-387.
Remand Determination
Pursuant to the aforementioned USCIT's Order issued on May 4,
2021, the workers' appeal was remanded to the Department to: 1)
evaluate the workers' evidence relative to AT&T's in determining
whether workers' job losses were caused by a shift in those
services to, or an acquisition of those services from, foreign
countries, and 2) address the creditability and reliability of
"non-certified" evidence provided by AT&T, and 3) if a shift of
work to foreign countries is determined to have occurred, determine
whether such shift "contributed importantly" to workers' job
losses.
The Department reviewed the Communications Workers of
America's "AT&T 2018 Jobs Report" provided during the initial
investigation, AR20; additional allegations provided by the
petitioner during the reconsideration investigation, AR114; and
responses provided by AT&T's Assistant Vice President "“ Senior
Legal Counsels.
Workers' evidence consisted of a report as well as specific
allegations regarding work being performed at a Jamaica call
center. The Communications Workers of America "AT&T 2018 Jobs
Report" submitted by petitioner describes job losses suffered
by AT&T employees throughout the U.S. and presents a general
assertion that AT&T work has been and continues to be moved to
non-U.S. locations. The report also reports the closure of
numerous U.S. call centers in various U.S. locations, including
Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and implies that the firm
decisions to route calls to third-party call centers outside the
U.S. may lead to reduced call volume for U.S. call centers. The
report also describes an AT&T call center opened in Mexico.
AR18-25. The petitioner submitted an additional allegation,
implying that workers in Jamaica were performing the same type of
call center work as workers at AT&T's Appleton, Wisconsin, office.
AR114. The general allegations in AT&T's 2018 Jobs Report and the
specific allegation about call center work in Jamaica formed the
basis of additional investigation questions. AR121-124, 292-293.
The general allegations in the AT&T 2018 Jobs Report submitted by
petitioner were countered by specific information supplied by AT&T
that did not reveal a basis for finding the job report allegations
applied to any of the five center investigations. AR121-128, 295-
297, 336-337. When asked whether workers in Jamaica perform the
same type of work as the Wisconsin workers, AT&T explained that
the work was not the same and provided additional information
addressing the differences in types of calls handled by the call
centers. AR122-124, 336-337.
AT&T's Assistant Vice President, Senior Legal Counsels
answered the Department's questions via written responses, and
based on the information pertaining to the workers' services
provided by AT&T, AR121-128. The general allegations in the jobs
report submitted by petitioner did not include specific evidence
or make specific claims that the work of the locations in question
moved to or was acquired from a foreign county, and were countered
by the specific responses of AT&T's representatives, which did not
support a basis for finding a shift of the work of any of the five
call centers to another country or the acquisition of such services
from another country. AR121-128, 295-297, 336-337. With respect to
the allegation that workers in Jamaica were performing the same
type of work as the workers at AT&T's Wisconsin call center, the
responses provided by AT&T's representatives explained that the
work performed in Jamaica was different and not performed under
the supervision of Wisconsin managers. AR122-124, 336-337.
The written statements provided to the Department by AT&T's
Assistant Vice President, Senior Legal Counsels in the course
of the reconsideration investigation about AT&T's own business
operations were determined by the Department to be accurate and
complete based upon the following: the firm is in the best
position to provide accurate, complete, and current information
regarding its own operations and business decisions, and the
responding officials each had access to the firm's records and
to other officials with direct knowledge of the firm's operations
and business decisions, including information about the
circumstances of worker separations that the petitioner does not
have.
Furthermore, at the onset of the investigation process, the
firm's responding official is formally notified of the statutory
requirement to submit all information requested by the Department
for official purposes and in submitting the BDR has affirmed, under
penalty of law, knowledge of the statutory requirement and the
veracity of the BDR responses provided to the Department. The
statutory requirement to provide complete and accurate information
subject to penalty of law applies to all responses to the
Department's investigations. AR11-13, 26-27, 49-50, 59-60, 90.
Further, AT&T's Assistant Vice President "“ Senior Legal
Counsels were aware of the role they played based upon the
Department's notification letters at the beginning of the
investigation confirming that only knowledgeable as well as
appropriate individuals should address the request for
information, "If you are not the appropriate contact person or if
you have any questions, please notify the Department as soon as
possible through the TAA Hotline at 888-365-6822;" and "If you are
not the appropriate company contact for this notice, notify me
within two business days. Please also provide the name and contact
information for the individual(s) within your organization who can
furnish the requested information." AR12-13, 26-27, 39-40, 49-50,
59-60, 83-84. The letter notification, the completion of the
Affirmation of Information section within the Business Data
Request forms, and concurrent and subsequent email correspondences
with AT&T's representatives confirmed the accuracy and credibility
of the information provided by the employer (AT&T).
Based on the specific information provided by AT&T, and the
determination that such information was accurate and complete,
the Department concluded that with respect to the five call
center locations subject to the investigation, job
responsibilities continued to be performed at other U.S.
locations and had not been shifted to a foreign country or
acquired from a foreign country. AR53, 63, 73, 92, 106, 250-261,
266-267, 272-273, 295-297, 300-303, 307-311, 325, 341-342, 349-
350. With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation(s) revealed that imports of call center, billing,
or network operations services did not increase during the period
relevant to the investigation(s), January 2017 to February 2019.
Imports of like or directly competitive services were not
reported during the aforementioned period. AR54, 64, 72, 94,
108, 372.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation(s) revealed that the workers' firm did not shift the
supply of call center, billing, or network operations services,
or like or directly competitive services, to a foreign country
or acquire call center, billing, or network operations services
or like or directly competitive services from a foreign country.
AT&T officials were required to address allegations that such
work had been shifted to foreign countries, and confirmed that
the work performed by workers at the subject locations remained
in the United States. The Department is not required to address
Section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act "contributed importantly"
because no shift in services, or acquisition of services, was
revealed by the investigation. AR53-54, 63-64, 72-73, 92-94, 106-
108, 250-261, 266-267, 272-273, 295-297, 300-303, 307-311, 325,
341-342, 349-350.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation(s) revealed that AT&T is not a Supplier and does
not act as 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). AR52, 54, 62, 64,
71-72, 91, 94, 105, 108, 121-128, 151, 325, 341-342, 349-350, 372.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, are not satisfied 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. AR153.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in both the initial
investigation and the reconsideration investigation, as shown in
the administrative record, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and
affirm the previous notices of negative determination of
eligibility of workers of Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.,
Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer Loyalty Group,
Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578) engaged in
activities related to the supply of call center operations
support services; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care,
Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton,
Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A) engaged in activities related to the
supply of call center operations support services; Indiana Bell
Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales
Department, Acquisition Center, Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-
94,578B) engaged in activities related to the supply of call
center operations support services; AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C) engaged in activities related to the supply
of billing support services; and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary
of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D) engaged in activities related
to the supply of network operations center support services, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of July, 2021
/s/ Hope D. Kinglock
_______________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE – CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP/MIDWEST
UVERSE RETENTION CENTERS
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGANDEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP
RETENTION CENTER
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T FINANCE BILLING OPERATIONS
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
NETWORK OPERATION CENTER
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDIAN, CONNECTICUT
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On August 30, 2019, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings,
Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Customer Loyalty Group/Midwest
UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578);
Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Sales
Deparment/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers, Appleton, Wisconsin
(TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care – Sales Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition
Centers Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc.,
a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global
Billing Resolution Team/AT&T Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations
Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM
Network Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D).
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the supply of
telecommunications services. Workers of TA-W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A
and TA-W-94,578B supply call center support services; workers of
TA-W-94,578C supply billing support services; and workers of TA-
W-94,578D supply network operations center support services.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination based on the findings that imports did not increase
during the relevant period; the workers’ firm did not shift the
supply of like or directly competitive services to a foreign
country or acquire such services from a foreign country; AT&T is
not a Supplier or act as 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);
and 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.
The request for reconsideration included new information
and allegations regarding a shift in services to a foreign
country.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
clarified the identification of the subject worker groups:
* Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, &
Care, Uverse, Customer Loyalty Group, Retention Centers,
Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578);
* Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin
(TA-W-94,578A);
* Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.,
Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department,
Acquisition Center, Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B);
* AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance Billing Operations, AT&T
Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse, New York (TA-W-
94,578C); and
* AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center, 911 Network
Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations
Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Centers, Meridian,
Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D).
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the workers’ firm neither shifted the supply of call
center support services, billing support services, or network
operations center support services (or like or directly
competitive services) to a foreign country nor contracted to have
such services supplied by a foreign country.
After careful review of previously-submitted information and
additional information obtained during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has
not been met.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I determine that the
requirements of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not
been met and affirm the original notice of negative determination
of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.,
Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer Loyalty Group,
Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin
Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales
Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-
94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center, 911
Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations
Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center, Meridian,
Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D), to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 21st day of January, 2020
/s/Del-Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL-MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE – SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE – SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM/AT&T FINANCE BILLING
OPERATIONS
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDIAN, CONNECTICUT
Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated July 25, 2019, a state workforce official
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Customer
Loyalty Group/Midwest UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo,
Michigan (TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-
owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, &
Care – Sales Deparment/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers,
Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company
Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Sales
Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers Indianapolis, Indiana
(TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. &
AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team/AT&T
Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse, New York (TA-W-94,578C); and
AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale
Signaling Network Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network
Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D)(hereafter
collectively referred to as “AT&T”). The workers’ firm is engaged
in activities related to the supply of telecommunications
services. Workers of TA-W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A, and TA-W-94,578B
supply call center operations support services, workers of TA-W-
94,578C supply billing support services, and workers of TA-W-
94,578D supply network operations center support services.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that imports did not increase during the
relevant period; the workers’ firm did not shift the supply of
like or directly competitive services to a foreign country or
acquire such services from a foreign country; AT&T is not a
Supplier or act as 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); and 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.
The request for reconsideration includes new information
and allegations regarding a shift in services to a foreign
country.
The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of August, 2019
/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-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE - CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP/MIDWEST
UVERSE RETENTION CENTERS
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE - SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE - SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM/AT&T FINANCE BILLING
OPERATIONS
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDIAN, CONNECTICUT
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for
workers under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a),
the following criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 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 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 March 4, 2019 by the Communication Workers of America
(CWA), Local 4123 on behalf of workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Customer Loyalty
Group/Midwest UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo, Michigan
(TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care
- Sales Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers,
Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone
Company Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Sales
Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers Indianapolis,
Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global Billing
Resolution Team/AT&T Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse, New
York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations
Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations Center, and
VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-
94,578D) (herein referred to as "AT&T"). The workers' firm is
engaged in activities related to the supply of
telecommunications services. Specifically, the workers of TA-
W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A, and TA-W-94,578B provide call center
operations support services, TA-W-94,578C provide billing
support services, and TA-W-94,578D provide network operations
center support services.
The petitioner here, "There have been over 40 call
centers closed in the past 7 years by AT&T. The... ...CWA Jobs
Report speaks to the center in Mexico that has 1,000 workers
that AT&T is looking to expand to 5,000 workers. AT&T has call
centers in many offshore locations including the Philippines
and the Caribbean. In 2019 AT&T is closing call Centers in
Kalamazoo, Michigan - Appleton, Wisconsin - Indianapolis,
Indiana - Syracuse, New York - and Meriden, Connecticut."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the petitioner.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports did not increase from 2017
to 2018 and comparing January through February 2019 to the
same period in 2018.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
call center, billing, or network operations services or like
or directly competitive services to a foreign country or
acquire call center, billing, or network operations services
or like or directly competitive services from a foreign
country. AT&T officials have confirmed the work remained in
the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that AT&T is not a Supplier or acts as
a Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of
workers who received a certification of eligibility under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either 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 Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Customer Loyalty
Group/Midwest UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo, Michigan
(TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care
- Sales Deparment/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers,
Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone
Company Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Sales
Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers Indianapolis,
Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global Billing
Resolution Team/AT&T Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse, New
York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations
Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations Center, and
VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-
94,578D) engaged in activities related to the supply of
telecommunications services specifically call center, billing,
and network operation center activities to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 1st day of July 2019.
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP
RETENTION CENTER
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T FINANCE BILLING OPERATIONS
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
NETWORK OPERATION CENTER
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT
Notice of Negative Determination on Remand
On May 4, 2021, the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) issued an opinion and order remanding the workers' appeal
to the Department of Labor ("the Department") to 1) address
workers' evidence and to weigh it against AT&T's evidence in
determining whether workers' job losses were caused by a shift in
those services to, or an acquisition of those services from,
foreign countries, as described in 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2); and 2) in
regards to "non-certified" evidence provided by AT&T, either find
that it "has a reasonable basis for determining that such
information is accurate and complete without being certified," and
explain the basis for that finding, or else require AT&T to certify
its evidence, and 3) if, on remand, Labor finds workers' evidence
convincing, the Department must address whether the shift to, or
acquisition from, foreign countries "contributed importantly" to
workers' job losses as described in 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former
Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of
Labor (Court No. 20-00075).
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 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).
During the course of both the initial investigation and the
reconsideration investigation, information was collected from the
workers' firm and the petitioner.
Initial Investigation
On March 4, 2019, a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) was filed by Communications Workers of America (CWA), Local
4123 on behalf of the workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D).
The subject workers were engaged in activities related to the
supply of telecommunications services. Specifically, the workers
covered under TA-W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A, and TA-W-94,578B
provided call center operations support services, the workers
covered under TA-W-94,578C provided billing support services,
and the workers under TA-W-94,578D provided network operations
center support services. AR1-4, 14-15.
In support of its petition, Communications Workers of
America, Local 4123 submitted a copy of the Communications Workers
of America's "AT&T 2018 Jobs Report," referenced in each of the
petitions, which describes job losses by AT&T call center employees
throughout the U.S. and makes general assertions that work is being
moved to non-U.S. locations. Closures are reported in various U.S.
locations, including Indianapolis, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Michigan,
and Appleton, Wisconsin. AR20, 22.
As it relates to the petitioner's allegation (that work was
being offshored from the specific five locations at issue), the
jobs report provided a narrative that offshoring of call center
work was generally occurring within AT&T at large, but did not
present evidence that such a shift occurred with respect to any of
the five locations at issue in this appeal. The CWA report also
reports one instance of a return of call center work to the U.S.
from offshore locations. AR14-23.
1) Analysis of workers' evidence vs. AT&T's evidence
Although the AT&T 2018 Jobs Report provided by the CWA, Local
4123 is not explicitly named in the Department's initial
investigation determination, its substance (as it relates to TAA
group eligibility criteria), including the issue of whether or not
work was shifted from any of the AT&T locations under the
investigation to any non-U.S. locations, was addressed in the
initial investigation.
The petitioner submitted an additional allegation, AR114,
implying that workers in Jamaica were performing the same type of
call center work as workers at AT&T's Appleton, Wisconsin, office.
The Department investigated this claim and determined, based on
additional information provided in writing by AT&T's Assistant
Vice President, Senior Legal Counsels, AR-121-128, that workers in
Jamaica did not perform the same type of call center work as
workers at the Appleton center. The work performed by the Appleton
workers remained within the United States.
2) Credibility of AT&T's information
In its responses to the Business Data Request (BDR) form for
each of the five respective locations, AT&T affirmed, under penalty
of law, that work at those specific locations was being
consolidated into other U.S. centers and not being shifted to a
foreign country or acquired from a foreign country. AR53, 63, 73,
92, 106. All BDR responses were provided under a signed affirmation
and acknowledgement of the applicable penalties under Federal law
for knowingly providing false information. AR57, 67, 76, 98 and
112.
3) Initial Determination
After addressing all worker group eligibility criteria for
TAA certification, the Department issued a negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance,
applicable to workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D), on July 1, 2019. AR154-162
The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45531).
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated July 25, 2019, the Communications
Workers of America, Local 4123 requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance,
applicable to workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D). AR174.
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 misinterpretation of
facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The request for reconsideration was granted. The Department's
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration was issued on August 30, 2019 and published in the
Federal Register on September 24, 2019 (84 FR 50076). AR175-178.
Reconsideration Investigation
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
pursued additional lines of questioning with AT&T pertaining to
the applicant's allegation(s) and collected additional
information to determine whether 1) any of the work at the five
subject locations was shifted to another country or countries
or acquired from a foreign country, and 2) the group of workers
or any portion of any of such a group meet any of the worker
group eligibility criteria for TAA certification. AR202-204,
206-208, 259-261, 267-268, 273-275, 292-293, 305-306, 317-319,
326-327. The additional information collected from AT&T during
the reconsideration investigation revealed that the services
supplied by the workers were not shifted to a foreign country
or acquired from a foreign country. In response to specific
questions based upon the petitioner's allegations, AT&T reported
that the work at each of the five subject locations remained
within the United States. Additionally, the remaining criteria
for certification were not met. AR250-261, 266-267, 272-273,
295-297, 300-303, 307-311, 325, 341-342, 349-350.
On January 21, 2020, the Department issued a negative
determination on reconsideration regarding eligibility to apply
for TAA applicable to workers and former workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer
Loyalty Group, Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-
94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-
W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D) based on the finding that the
worker group eligibility criteria set forth in Section 222 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, were not met. AR382-387.
Remand Determination
Pursuant to the aforementioned USCIT's Order issued on May 4,
2021, the workers' appeal was remanded to the Department to: 1)
evaluate the workers' evidence relative to AT&T's in determining
whether workers' job losses were caused by a shift in those
services to, or an acquisition of those services from, foreign
countries, and 2) address the creditability and reliability of
"non-certified" evidence provided by AT&T, and 3) if a shift of
work to foreign countries is determined to have occurred, determine
whether such shift "contributed importantly" to workers' job
losses.
The Department reviewed the Communications Workers of
America's "AT&T 2018 Jobs Report" provided during the initial
investigation, AR20; additional allegations provided by the
petitioner during the reconsideration investigation, AR114; and
responses provided by AT&T's Assistant Vice President "“ Senior
Legal Counsels.
Workers' evidence consisted of a report as well as specific
allegations regarding work being performed at a Jamaica call
center. The Communications Workers of America "AT&T 2018 Jobs
Report" submitted by petitioner describes job losses suffered
by AT&T employees throughout the U.S. and presents a general
assertion that AT&T work has been and continues to be moved to
non-U.S. locations. The report also reports the closure of
numerous U.S. call centers in various U.S. locations, including
Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and implies that the firm
decisions to route calls to third-party call centers outside the
U.S. may lead to reduced call volume for U.S. call centers. The
report also describes an AT&T call center opened in Mexico.
AR18-25. The petitioner submitted an additional allegation,
implying that workers in Jamaica were performing the same type of
call center work as workers at AT&T's Appleton, Wisconsin, office.
AR114. The general allegations in AT&T's 2018 Jobs Report and the
specific allegation about call center work in Jamaica formed the
basis of additional investigation questions. AR121-124, 292-293.
The general allegations in the AT&T 2018 Jobs Report submitted by
petitioner were countered by specific information supplied by AT&T
that did not reveal a basis for finding the job report allegations
applied to any of the five center investigations. AR121-128, 295-
297, 336-337. When asked whether workers in Jamaica perform the
same type of work as the Wisconsin workers, AT&T explained that
the work was not the same and provided additional information
addressing the differences in types of calls handled by the call
centers. AR122-124, 336-337.
AT&T's Assistant Vice President, Senior Legal Counsels
answered the Department's questions via written responses, and
based on the information pertaining to the workers' services
provided by AT&T, AR121-128. The general allegations in the jobs
report submitted by petitioner did not include specific evidence
or make specific claims that the work of the locations in question
moved to or was acquired from a foreign county, and were countered
by the specific responses of AT&T's representatives, which did not
support a basis for finding a shift of the work of any of the five
call centers to another country or the acquisition of such services
from another country. AR121-128, 295-297, 336-337. With respect to
the allegation that workers in Jamaica were performing the same
type of work as the workers at AT&T's Wisconsin call center, the
responses provided by AT&T's representatives explained that the
work performed in Jamaica was different and not performed under
the supervision of Wisconsin managers. AR122-124, 336-337.
The written statements provided to the Department by AT&T's
Assistant Vice President, Senior Legal Counsels in the course
of the reconsideration investigation about AT&T's own business
operations were determined by the Department to be accurate and
complete based upon the following: the firm is in the best
position to provide accurate, complete, and current information
regarding its own operations and business decisions, and the
responding officials each had access to the firm's records and
to other officials with direct knowledge of the firm's operations
and business decisions, including information about the
circumstances of worker separations that the petitioner does not
have.
Furthermore, at the onset of the investigation process, the
firm's responding official is formally notified of the statutory
requirement to submit all information requested by the Department
for official purposes and in submitting the BDR has affirmed, under
penalty of law, knowledge of the statutory requirement and the
veracity of the BDR responses provided to the Department. The
statutory requirement to provide complete and accurate information
subject to penalty of law applies to all responses to the
Department's investigations. AR11-13, 26-27, 49-50, 59-60, 90.
Further, AT&T's Assistant Vice President "“ Senior Legal
Counsels were aware of the role they played based upon the
Department's notification letters at the beginning of the
investigation confirming that only knowledgeable as well as
appropriate individuals should address the request for
information, "If you are not the appropriate contact person or if
you have any questions, please notify the Department as soon as
possible through the TAA Hotline at 888-365-6822;" and "If you are
not the appropriate company contact for this notice, notify me
within two business days. Please also provide the name and contact
information for the individual(s) within your organization who can
furnish the requested information." AR12-13, 26-27, 39-40, 49-50,
59-60, 83-84. The letter notification, the completion of the
Affirmation of Information section within the Business Data
Request forms, and concurrent and subsequent email correspondences
with AT&T's representatives confirmed the accuracy and credibility
of the information provided by the employer (AT&T).
Based on the specific information provided by AT&T, and the
determination that such information was accurate and complete,
the Department concluded that with respect to the five call
center locations subject to the investigation, job
responsibilities continued to be performed at other U.S.
locations and had not been shifted to a foreign country or
acquired from a foreign country. AR53, 63, 73, 92, 106, 250-261,
266-267, 272-273, 295-297, 300-303, 307-311, 325, 341-342, 349-
350. With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation(s) revealed that imports of call center, billing,
or network operations services did not increase during the period
relevant to the investigation(s), January 2017 to February 2019.
Imports of like or directly competitive services were not
reported during the aforementioned period. AR54, 64, 72, 94,
108, 372.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation(s) revealed that the workers' firm did not shift the
supply of call center, billing, or network operations services,
or like or directly competitive services, to a foreign country
or acquire call center, billing, or network operations services
or like or directly competitive services from a foreign country.
AT&T officials were required to address allegations that such
work had been shifted to foreign countries, and confirmed that
the work performed by workers at the subject locations remained
in the United States. The Department is not required to address
Section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act "contributed importantly"
because no shift in services, or acquisition of services, was
revealed by the investigation. AR53-54, 63-64, 72-73, 92-94, 106-
108, 250-261, 266-267, 272-273, 295-297, 300-303, 307-311, 325,
341-342, 349-350.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation(s) revealed that AT&T is not a Supplier and does
not act as 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). AR52, 54, 62, 64,
71-72, 91, 94, 105, 108, 121-128, 151, 325, 341-342, 349-350, 372.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, are not satisfied 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. AR153.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in both the initial
investigation and the reconsideration investigation, as shown in
the administrative record, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and
affirm the previous notices of negative determination of
eligibility of workers of Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.,
Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer Loyalty Group,
Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578) engaged in
activities related to the supply of call center operations
support services; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care,
Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton,
Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A) engaged in activities related to the
supply of call center operations support services; Indiana Bell
Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales
Department, Acquisition Center, Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-
94,578B) engaged in activities related to the supply of call
center operations support services; AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C) engaged in activities related to the supply
of billing support services; and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary
of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center,
911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network
Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center,
Meriden, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D) engaged in activities related
to the supply of network operations center support services, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of July, 2021
/s/ Hope D. Kinglock
_______________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE – CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP/MIDWEST
UVERSE RETENTION CENTERS
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGANDEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP
RETENTION CENTER
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE
UVERSE
SALES DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION CENTER
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T FINANCE BILLING OPERATIONS
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
NETWORK OPERATION CENTER
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDIAN, CONNECTICUT
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On August 30, 2019, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings,
Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Customer Loyalty Group/Midwest
UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578);
Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Sales
Deparment/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers, Appleton, Wisconsin
(TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care – Sales Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition
Centers Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc.,
a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global
Billing Resolution Team/AT&T Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations
Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM
Network Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D).
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the supply of
telecommunications services. Workers of TA-W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A
and TA-W-94,578B supply call center support services; workers of
TA-W-94,578C supply billing support services; and workers of TA-
W-94,578D supply network operations center support services.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination based on the findings that imports did not increase
during the relevant period; the workers’ firm did not shift the
supply of like or directly competitive services to a foreign
country or acquire such services from a foreign country; AT&T is
not a Supplier or act as 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);
and 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.
The request for reconsideration included new information
and allegations regarding a shift in services to a foreign
country.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
clarified the identification of the subject worker groups:
* Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, &
Care, Uverse, Customer Loyalty Group, Retention Centers,
Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578);
* Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse,
Sales Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin
(TA-W-94,578A);
* Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.,
Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department,
Acquisition Center, Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B);
* AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance Billing Operations, AT&T
Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse, New York (TA-W-
94,578C); and
* AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center, 911 Network
Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations
Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Centers, Meridian,
Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D).
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the workers’ firm neither shifted the supply of call
center support services, billing support services, or network
operations center support services (or like or directly
competitive services) to a foreign country nor contracted to have
such services supplied by a foreign country.
After careful review of previously-submitted information and
additional information obtained during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has
not been met.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I determine that the
requirements of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not
been met and affirm the original notice of negative determination
of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.,
Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Customer Loyalty Group,
Retention Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan (TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin
Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales
Department, Acquisition Center, Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-
94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital,
Retail, & Care, Uverse, Sales Department, Acquisition Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Finance
Billing Operations, AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team, Syracuse,
New York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Network Operation Center, 911
Network Operations Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations
Center, and VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center, Meridian,
Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D), to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 21st day of January, 2020
/s/Del-Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL-MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE – SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE – SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM/AT&T FINANCE BILLING
OPERATIONS
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDIAN, CONNECTICUT
Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated July 25, 2019, a state workforce official
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Customer
Loyalty Group/Midwest UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo,
Michigan (TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-
owned subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, &
Care – Sales Deparment/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers,
Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone Company
Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care – Sales
Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers Indianapolis, Indiana
(TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. &
AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global Billing Resolution Team/AT&T
Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse, New York (TA-W-94,578C); and
AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. & AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations Center, Wholesale
Signaling Network Operations Center, and VOIP2TDM Network
Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-94,578D)(hereafter
collectively referred to as “AT&T”). The workers’ firm is engaged
in activities related to the supply of telecommunications
services. Workers of TA-W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A, and TA-W-94,578B
supply call center operations support services, workers of TA-W-
94,578C supply billing support services, and workers of TA-W-
94,578D supply network operations center support services.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that imports did not increase during the
relevant period; the workers’ firm did not shift the supply of
like or directly competitive services to a foreign country or
acquire such services from a foreign country; AT&T is not a
Supplier or act as 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); and 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.
The request for reconsideration includes new information
and allegations regarding a shift in services to a foreign
country.
The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of August, 2019
/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-94,578
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE - CUSTOMER LOYALTY GROUP/MIDWEST
UVERSE RETENTION CENTERS
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
TA-W-94,578A
WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE - SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
TA-W-94,578B
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
A DIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
DIGITAL, RETAIL, & CARE - SALES DEPARTMENT/MIDWEST UVERSE
ACQUISITION CENTERS
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
TA-W-94,578C
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
AT&T GLOBAL BILLING RESOLUTION TEAM/AT&T FINANCE BILLING
OPERATIONS
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
TA-W-94,578D
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF AT&T, INC. & AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.
911 NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER, WHOLESALE SIGNALING NETWORK
OPERATIONS CENTER, AND VOIP2TDM NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
MERIDIAN, CONNECTICUT
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for
workers under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a),
the following criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 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 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 March 4, 2019 by the Communication Workers of America
(CWA), Local 4123 on behalf of workers of Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Customer Loyalty
Group/Midwest UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo, Michigan
(TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care
- Sales Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers,
Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone
Company Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Sales
Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers Indianapolis,
Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global Billing
Resolution Team/AT&T Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse, New
York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations
Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations Center, and
VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-
94,578D) (herein referred to as "AT&T"). The workers' firm is
engaged in activities related to the supply of
telecommunications services. Specifically, the workers of TA-
W-94,578, TA-W-94,578A, and TA-W-94,578B provide call center
operations support services, TA-W-94,578C provide billing
support services, and TA-W-94,578D provide network operations
center support services.
The petitioner here, "There have been over 40 call
centers closed in the past 7 years by AT&T. The... ...CWA Jobs
Report speaks to the center in Mexico that has 1,000 workers
that AT&T is looking to expand to 5,000 workers. AT&T has call
centers in many offshore locations including the Philippines
and the Caribbean. In 2019 AT&T is closing call Centers in
Kalamazoo, Michigan - Appleton, Wisconsin - Indianapolis,
Indiana - Syracuse, New York - and Meriden, Connecticut."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the petitioner.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports did not increase from 2017
to 2018 and comparing January through February 2019 to the
same period in 2018.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
call center, billing, or network operations services or like
or directly competitive services to a foreign country or
acquire call center, billing, or network operations services
or like or directly competitive services from a foreign
country. AT&T officials have confirmed the work remained in
the United States.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that AT&T is not a Supplier or acts as
a Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of
workers who received a certification of eligibility under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either 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 Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Customer Loyalty
Group/Midwest UVerse, Retention Centers, Kalamazoo, Michigan
(TA-W-94,578); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care
- Sales Deparment/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers,
Appleton, Wisconsin (TA-W-94,578A); Indiana Bell Telephone
Company Incorporated, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., Digital, Retail, & Care - Sales
Department/Midwest Uverse Acquisition Centers Indianapolis,
Indiana (TA-W-94,578B); AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Global Billing
Resolution Team/AT&T Finance Billing Operations, Syracuse, New
York (TA-W-94,578C); and AT&T Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
AT&T, Inc. & AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., 911 Network Operations
Center, Wholesale Signaling Network Operations Center, and
VOIP2TDM Network Operations Center, Meridian, Connecticut (TA-W-
94,578D) engaged in activities related to the supply of
telecommunications services specifically call center, billing,
and network operation center activities to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 1st day of July 2019.
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance