DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,851

BURLINGTON RESOURCES
GULF COAST DIVISION
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on October 10, 2002, a petitioner
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
Burlington Resources, Gulf Coast Division, Houston, Texas was
signed on September 11, 2002, and published in the Federal
Register on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61160).
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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at
Burlington Resources, Gulf Coast Division, Houston, Texas engaged
in activities related to clerical, accounting, legal and
marketing services. The petition was denied because the
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The petitioner alleges that the majority of the petitioning
worker group at Burlington Resources, Gulf Coast Division,
Houston, Texas were production workers.
Upon further review and company contact, it was revealed
that, although the overwhelming majority of workers in the
petitioning worker group were office workers, a small percentage
of the group fulfilled other job functions. A review of the job
descriptions of these few workers revealed that, in addition to
administrative functions, they were engaged in safety and
environmental assessment services, and supervisory functions. As
these functions do not constitute production, the original
finding established in the initial investigation remains valid.
The petitioner also cites company data that indicates
increased imports in natural oil and gas with corresponding
declines in domestic production. As the petitioning worker group
does not produce a product, however, this information is
irrelevant.
Finally, the petitioner asserted that a very similar worker
group at Texaco Exploration (TA-W-41,243 and TA-W-41,243 A-G),
was certified for trade adjustment assistance, and attached a
copy of this certification to the request for reconsideration.
The petitioner also notes that other Burlington Resources
facilities have been certified in the past.
A review of the Texaco certification revealed that
production workers were involved in the petitioning worker group.
Although it is not indicated that similar work functions were
involved in this certification, it is hypothetically possible
that workers performing the same functions as those in the
petitioning worker group could have been part of the Texaco
certification. If service workers are in direct support of
petitioning or TAA certified production workers, then workers in
these support functions may be eligible. In the case of the
petitioning worker group in this investigation, there are no
production workers represented. Similarly, past certifications
for Burlington Resources involved worker groups that included
production workers.
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
currently under certification for TAA.
In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the
Trade Act 1974.



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 at Washington, D.C., this 27th day of February, 2003.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick


EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance