DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,880

AFFILIATED BUILDING SERVICES
BISCOE, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated October 2, 2002, a company official
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
Affiliated Building Services, Biscoe, North Carolina was signed
on September 9, 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
Affiliated Building Services, Biscoe, North Carolina engaged in
activities related to the maintenance of building systems
(heating, cooling, air compressors). The petition was denied
because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within
the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
To support its request for reconsideration, the petitioners
provided a more detailed description of the functions performed
at the subject facility.
A review of the job duties and their relationship to
production of products revealed that the expanded description did
not vary from the functions described in the initial
investigation: maintenance of building systems, including
heating, cooling and air compressors.
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 petitioning workers at the subject firm
did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(3)
of the Trade Act of 1974, nor were separations caused by a
reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling
firm or subdivision whose workers produced an article and who are
currently under certification for TAA.


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 11th day of February, 2003.

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance