[Federal Register: February 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 8118-8119]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23fe09-102]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-64,272]
The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, WI; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated January 3, 2009, the petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA),
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
denial notice was signed on November 21, 2008 and published in the
Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75136).
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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers
of the Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin was based on
the finding that the worker group does not produce an article within
the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation
revealed that workers of the subject firm compile databases derived
from marketing surveys. The investigation further revealed that no
production of article(s) occurred within the firm or appropriate
subdivision during the relevant period.
The petitioner in the request for reconsideration contends that the
Department erred in its interpretation of the work performed by the
workers of the subject firm. The petitioner states that the workers of
the subject firm ``produce databases that are bought and paid for on a
weekly basis''. The petitioner also indicates that even though they
performed ``computer jobs'', these ``technical jobs'' should be
considered as production jobs.
The investigation revealed that the Nielsen Company is the
marketing research organization that provides marketing research
services to various manufacturers of consumer products or large
retailers. No articles are produced within Nielsen Company. The workers
of the Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin receive raw
scanner data from the retailers, analyze the data and compile the
information into the databases, which are used by clients on a
syndicated basis so they can monitor how their products are being
purchased in comparison to competing products in the marketplace. The
workers of the subject firm support marketing research service
functions of the Nielsen Company.
These functions, as described above, are not considered production
of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. While
the provision of services may result in printed material or can be
stored electronically, it is incidental to the provision of these
services. Databases created by workers of the subject firm are used by
the Nielsen Company as incidental to marketing research services
provided by the subject firm. No production took place at the subject
facility nor did the workers support production of an article at any
domestic affiliated location during the relevant period.
The petitioner also alleges that job functions have been shifted
from the subject firm overseas.
The company official confirmed that Product Reference coding
functions
[[Page 8119]]
were shifted to India. The allegation of a shift to another country
might be relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm
produced an article. However, the investigation determined that workers
of Nielsen Company (US), LLC, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin do not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Therefore, there are no imports of articles which negatively impacted
workers of the subject firm.
Conclusion
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 in Washington, DC, this 4th day of February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-3730 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P