Electronic Data Systems, an HP Company, Plano, TX; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 55267 [E9-25789]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 55267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25789]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,631]


Electronic Data Systems, an HP Company, Plano, TX; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application postmarked September 14, 2009, a petitioner 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on September 2, 2009 and 
will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    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 Electronic Data Systems, an HP Company, Plano, Texas was based on 
the finding that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to 
separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by 
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The petitioner stated that he was separated from the employment 
during May 2009 at which time his position was shifted to Brazil.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department determines 
whether each required criterion is met. In order for the criteria 
(a)(2)(A)(i) and 222(c)(1) to be met, the Department exclusively 
considers the relevant employment data (for one year prior to the date 
of the petition and any imminent layoffs) for the facility where the 
petitioning worker group was employed.
    In case at hand, the investigation revealed that employment levels 
at Electronic Data Systems, an HP Company, Plano, Texas declined by two 
during the relevant period and there was no threat of separations. 
Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or 
appropriate subdivision means at least three workers in a workforce of 
fewer than 50 workers, five percent of the workers in a workforce of 
over 50 workers, or at least 50 workers. Therefore, criterion I of 
Section 222(a) and criterion (1) of Section 222(c) of the Act were not 
met.
    The petitioner also alleged that there was a shift in services 
provided by the workers of the subject firm to Brazil.
    The allegation of the shift in services to Brazil would have been 
relevant if it was determined that all other criteria have been met. 
However, it was revealed that there was no significant employment 
decline at the subject facility during the relevant period.
    Should conditions change in the future, the petitioner is 
encouraged to file a new petition on behalf of the worker group which 
will encompass an investigative period that will include these changing 
conditions.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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 15th day of October 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-25789 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P