[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16450-16451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6803]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-73,938]
Management Resources Group, Inc., Including Workers in the States
of Georgia and New York Reporting to Southbury, CT; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On January 13, 2011, the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand
to conduct further investigation in Former Employees of Management
Resources Group, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, Court No.
10-00345.
[[Page 16451]]
On April 15, 2010, a State of Connecticut Workforce Office
representative filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
with the Department of Labor (Department) on behalf of workers and
former workers of Management Resources Group, Inc., Southbury,
Connecticut (subject firm). Workers at the subject firm (subject worker
group) are engaged in employment related to the supply of asset
reliability engineering consulting services. The worker group does not
include on-site leased workers.
The Department's initial findings revealed that the subject firm
did not import services like or directly competitive with the
engineering consulting services supplied by the workers, shift the
supply of these services abroad, or acquire from a foreign country the
supply of these services, during the period under investigation.
Further, the Department surveyed the subject firm's major declining
customers regarding imports of engineering consulting services during
the relevant time period. The survey revealed that none of the
customers imported services like or directly competitive with those
supplied by the subject firm. Consequently, the Department determined
that the group eligibility requirements under Section 222 of the Trade
Act, as amended (the Act), had not been met.
On September 16, 2010, the Department issued a Negative
Determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable to
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department's Notice
of Determination was published in the Federal Register on September 29,
2010 (75 FR 60145).
The Department did not receive a request for administrative
reconsideration.
In the complaint to the USCIT, the Plaintiffs claimed that subject
firm workers were impacted by a shift in services to a foreign country
as ``[Management Resources Group, Inc.] outsourced work previously done
by Plaintiffs to a firm in India * * *.''
On January 11, 2011, the Department requested voluntary remand to
conduct further investigation to address the Plaintiffs' allegations,
to determine whether the subject worker group is eligible to apply for
TAA, and to issue an appropriate determination. On January 13, 2011,
the USCIT granted the Department's Motion for Voluntary Remand.
To apply for worker adjustment assistance under Section 222(a) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), the following criteria must be met:
I. 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.
II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied if either:
(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
(i)(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.
III. The third criterion requires that the shift/acquisition must
have contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of
separation. See Section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover all
workers of the subject firm, or appropriate subdivision, who were
adversely affected by increased imports of services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the subject worker group or a shift
to or acquisition from a foreign country of the service supplied by the
workers, based on the investigation of the TAA petition.
During the remand investigation, the Department carefully reviewed
previously submitted information, obtained additional information from
the subject firm, and solicited input from the Plaintiffs.
Based on the information collected during the remand investigation,
the Department determined that a significant number or proportion of
the workers at the subject firm was totally or partially separated, or
threatened with such separation. Further, the Department determined
that workers in the Inventory Services Group, which performs activities
related to Maintenance, Repair, and Operations, were impacted by a
shift in the supply of services abroad and that the shift contributed
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm. The functions of
the other groups within the subject firm also support activities
related to supply of asset reliability engineering consulting services,
and are included under this petition.
Specifically, during the period under investigation, the subject
firm shifted to India the supply of services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the Inventory Services Group.
Information collected revealed evidence of a foreign contract in
conjunction with declines in domestic employment.
The subject worker group includes all workers at the Southbury,
Connecticut location and employees who worked remotely in the States of
Georgia and New York and reported to Southbury, Connecticut during the
relevant time period. The subject worker group does not include on-site
leased workers.
After careful review on remand, the Department has determined that
a significant number or proportion of the workers at the subject firm
was separated. Further, the Department has determined that a shift
abroad of services like or directly competitive with the services
supplied by the subject worker group contributed importantly to worker
group separations. Therefore, the Department has determined that the
group eligibility requirements, under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act,
have been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts during the remand investigation,
I determine that Management Resources Group, Inc., Southbury,
Connecticut, has shifted to a foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with the engineering consulting services
supplied by the subject worker group. In accordance with the provisions
of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Management Resources Group, Inc., Southbury,
Connecticut, including workers in Georgia and New York who report to
the subject firm, who are engaged in employment related to the
supply of asset reliability engineering consulting services and
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after
April 15, 2008, through two years from the date of this revised
certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or
partial separation from employment on date of certification through
two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended.
Signed at Washington, DC this 10th day of March 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-6803 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P