[Federal Register: April 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 16837-16838]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ap03-96]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-41,222]
Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, Piketon, OH; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application received on August 15, 2002, an attorney acting on
behalf of the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy
International Union, Local 5-689, requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding
eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice applicable to
workers of Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, Piketon, Ohio was signed on July
1, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2002 (67 FR
47400).
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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Bechtel Jacobs
Company LLC, Piketon, Ohio engaged in activities related to the
environmental management services and site restoration activities. The
petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The union alleges that laid off workers at Bechtel Jacobs Company
LLC, Piketon, Ohio were in direct support of United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC), which is currently TAA certified. The union
proceeds to assert that, because the union secured ``bumping'' rights
for laid-off workers of USEC (allowing them seniority rights in
obtaining positions with Bechtel Jacobs), this tie to the TAA certified
firm validates the petitioning workers' eligibility. The union also
asserts that, as all union-represented employees of Bechtel Jacobs are
fomer employees of USEC, the import impact on the certified firm has a
direct bearing on the petitioning worker group.
There is no legal affiliation between Bechtel Jacobs and the TAA
certified firm. In fact, the union lawyer attests to this, stating that
the two companies are ``separate legal entities''. The existence of
bumping rights (as established by a union) does not meet the connection
required for petitioning worker eligibility based on affiliation to a
TAA certified firm.
The petitioner further asserts that, because workers at Bechtel
Jacobs are entirely reliant on production levels at USEC, the subject
firm workers should be certified.
The fact that service workers are dependant on the production of a
trade certified firm does not automatically make the service workers
eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Before service workers can be
considered eligible for TAA, they must be in direct support of an
affiliated TAA certified facility. This is not the case for the Bechtel
Jacobs LLC.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision
whose workers produce an article and who are under certification for
TAA.
The petitioner appears to assert that workers laid off from Bechtel
Jacobs are being denied eligibility for TAA because they chose to be
employed, because if they had refused jobs at Bechtel Jacobs following
their lay off from USEC, they would be considered eligible for TAA
benefits.
Worker eligibility that is determined by layoffs that occurred at a
firm that precedes the last place of employment is determined by the
state on an individual basis to determine if the worker(s) meet the
various factors under the existing certification during the relevant
period.
Finally, the petitioner alleges that in a previous TAA
certification of USEC (TA-W-37, 599A), a petition on behalf of workers
at Bechtel Jacobs was withdrawn at the request of the Department. The
petitioner further asserts that this request for withdrawal was due to
the fact that there was already an existing TAA certification on behalf
of workers at USEC. In essence, the union asserts that they were
informed by the Department that workers of Bechtel Jacobs would be
considered part of the petitioning worker group at USEC. As a result of
this precedent, the petitioner concludes that the Department itself
identified a connection between Bechtel Jacobs and USEC that
established grounds for
[[Page 16838]]
petitioning worker eligibility for TAA benefits in the current
investigation.
The TAA termination of the previous case (TA-W-39, 052) relates to
the discovery that, during the verification process, it was revealed
that the Bechtel Jacobs LLC workers were employed by USEC and
terminated during the relevant period of the USEC TAA certification and
thus could be considered eligible under that certification. Since the
workers were impacted at USEC during the relevant period, those workers
may qualify as terminated workers and thus meet the eligibility
requirements as laid off workers of USEC during the relevant period.
Thus the decision was made by the Union to withdraw the petition at
that time since the workers could qualify under the USEC TAA
certification.
Therefore, the petitioning group of workers transfer from USEC to a
new company (Bechtel Jacobs) doesn't qualify a TAA certification under
the name of Bechtel Jacobs. Bechtel Jacobs workers who were eligible
for trade adjustment assistance in the USEC certification met
eligibility requirements only because they had been separated from
USEC, and thus the state was able to qualify the Bechtel Jacobs workers
as separated USEC employees.
As already indicated, since the petitioning worker group in this
investigation was not engaged in production, but performed a service
(environmental management services and site restoration activities) for
an unaffiliated firm, they do not qualify for eligibility under the
Trade Act of 1974.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of March, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8348 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M