Labor Backs Its Decision to Not Provide Trade Adjustment Aid to AT&T Call Center Workers

The Labor Department properly considered all of the evidence when it continued to find that a unionized group of former AT&T call center employees are not entitled to trade adjustment assistance for outsourced jobs, the department said in an Oct. 20 reply brief filed at the Court of International Trade. Responding to accusations from the workers, Labor said what plaintiffs failed to do was point to any evidence that Labor failed to consider, the brief said (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).

In May, the court remanded the case to the agency after Judge M. Miller Baker found that Labor failed to discuss or even reference the union's evidence of why the trade adjustment case was warranted in its determination (see 2105040032). Former call center employees from Kalamazoo, Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Appleton, Wisconsin, had provided evidence that the call center jobs were relocated to Mexico and Jamaica. Hope Kinglock, a certifying officer with Labor's Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, looked at the evidence and continued to hold on remand that the employees were not entitled to the aid (see 2107230031).

This led the employees to blast Labor's remand process, arguing, among other things, that the department failed to "address detracting evidence submitted by Plaintiffs and explain why it reasonably relied on AT&T's noncertified information." Labor countered that the workers are wrong since they "ignore Labor's analysis of record evidence, citations to the record evidence, and the conclusions that Labor reaches in the remand results." Labor also backed its decision to weigh AT&T's data over the workers', claiming that the AT&T evidence was "specific and provided actual information that was relevant to assessing plaintiffs' statutory eligibility for TAA benefits." The workers' evidence was mere allegations that didn't support a finding that they met the criteria for TAA benefits, the brief said.

For instance, AT&T responded to an allegation that the Jamaica-based employees were involved in some of the same work that the U.S. locations undertook. The company said that the work was not the same, giving additional evidence addressing the differences in types of calls handled by the call centers, the brief said.

The workers also pointed out that the AT&T information was "uncertified." Labor explained why it was acceptable in this instance to rely on the uncertified information. In particular, statements from AT&T's assistant vice president and senior legal counsels were accurate since the company was "statutorily obligated to provide complete and accurate information." AT&T confirmed "under penalty of law" that the information was accurate, and that the company was aware that it was bound to provide accurate information, among other reasons.

The workers tried tacking onto this potential shortcoming in Labor's determination, arguing that the department wrongly relied on the uncertified statements. Labor doesn't cite any evidence supporting its claim that AT&T is in the best position to give accurate and complete information about its own business operations, the workers claimed. "This argument is nonsensical," the brief said. "Plaintiffs submitted a petition for TAA benefits based on AT&T’s alleged business practices and operations. It is absurd for plaintiffs to now argue that Labor erred in relying on evidence submitted by the subject firm whose business practices and operations plaintiffs asked Labor to review."