Domsey Trading Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 22, 2013

29-CA-014548 (N.L.R.B. May. 22, 2013)

JD(ATL)–13–13
Brooklyn, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DOMSEY TRADING CORPORATION, DOMSEY
FIBER CORPORATION AND DOMSEY INTERNATIONAL
SALES CORPORATION, A Single Employer AND
ARTHUR SALM, Individually
and Cases 29–CA–14548
29–CA–14619
INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT 29–CA–14681
WORKERS’ UNION, AFL-CIO 29–CA–14735
29–CA–14845
LOCAL 99, INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ 29–CA–14853
GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO 29–CA–14896
29–CA–14983
29–CA–15012
29–CA–15119
29–CA–15124
29–CA–15137
29–CA–15147
29–CA–15323
29–CA–15324
29–CA–15325
29–CA–15332
29–CA–15393
29–CA–15413
29–CA–15447
29–CA–15685
Aggie Kapelman, Esq. and Kathy Drew King, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Errol F. Margolin, Esq. and Philip Pierce, Esq.,
for the Respondent Arthur Salm.
Scott Markowitz, Esq.,
for David Salm/Party in Interest.1

1 Attorney Markowitz appeared only for the first day of hearing on remand in order to make a
motion on behalf of his client.
JD(ATL)–13–13
2
FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
MICHAEL A. MARCIONESE, Administrative Law Judge. The long and tortuous
history of this case began in 1989 when employees of the Respondent, Domsey Trading 5
Corporation and its affiliated companies, a single employer, began their union organizing
drive. On March 23, 1993, the Board issued its initial decision in this case finding that the
Respondent committed numerous unfair labor practices in response to its employees’ efforts
to seek union representation, including the unlawful discharge of several employees and the
unlawful failure to reinstate 202 unfair labor practice strikers in August 1990. Domsey 10
Trading Corp., 310 NLRB 777 (1993). The Respondent was ordered to, inter alia, reinstate
the discharged employees and unreinstated strikers and make them whole for any loss of
earnings and benefits they may have suffered.2 The Board’s Order was enforced by the Court
of Appeals on February 18, 1994. Domsey Trading Corp. v. NLRB, 16 F.3d 517 (2d Cir.
1994). 15
Because the parties were unable to agree on the amount of backpay owed the
discriminatees, a compliance proceeding was commenced. I presided over the compliance
hearing on various dates between October 27, 1997, and January 29, 1999. During the course
of the hearing, approximately three quarters of the 202 discriminatees appeared and were 20
questioned by the Respondent regarding their backpay claims. Following existing precedent, I
limited Respondent’s questioning of the discriminatees with respect to their immigration
status.3 On October 4, 1998, I issued the first supplemental decision in this case, awarding
backpay to 187 named discriminatees.4 On September 27, 2007, about 8 years later, the
Board issued its first Supplemental Decision and Order addressing the Respondent’s 25
exceptions to my decision. Domsey Trading Corp. II, 351 NLRB 824 (2007). While the case
was pending at the Board, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hoffman Plastics
Compound v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), holding that individuals not authorized to work in
this country were not entitled to backpay under the Act. Based on Hoffman Plastics, the
Board reversed the backpay award to four discriminatees who had admitted at the hearing that 30
they were undocumented. The Board, inter alia, remanded the case to me for further
determination as to the immigration status of six discriminatees. The Board upheld the award
of backpay, with modifications, to the remaining discriminatees.
On September 25, 2008, the Board issued a Second Supplemental Decision and Order 35
adopting the Regional Director’s recalculation of backpay and adopting my findings on
remand regarding the immigration status of the six discriminatees whose status was then in
dispute. Domsey Trading Corp. III, 353 NLRB 86 (2008).5 The Board thereafter sought

2 There is no dispute that the backpay period ended on August 20, 1991, the date the Respondent
made a valid offer of reinstatement to the strikers as a group.
3 A.P.R.A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 NLRB 408 (1995), enfd. 134 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1997).
4 Twelve discriminatees were found to have no backpay owed. In addition, during the course of
the hearing, the Respondent satisfied the backpay claims of three employees whose claims were for
nominal amounts.
5 This Order issued at a time when the Board was reduced to two sitting members. After the
Supreme Court’s decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635 (2010), the Board
JD(ATL)–13–13
3
enforcement of its Second Supplemental Decision and Order in the Second Circuit. On
February 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied enforcement of the Board’s order. The court,
in denying enforcement, found that the Board erred by failing to consider the Respondent’s
objections to my pre-Hoffman Plastics evidentiary rulings that limited the Respondent’s
questioning of backpay claimants regarding their immigration status. The court concluded 5
that the Board had “abused its discretion by failing to remand the case to the administrative
law judge for further proceedings consistent with Hoffman.” NLRB v. Domsey Trading
Corp., 636 F.3d 33, 38 (2d Cir. 2011). On December 30, 2011, the Board issued its Fourth
Supplemental Decision and Order Remanding. Domsey Trading Corp. V, 357 NLRB No. 164
(2011). The Board remanded the proceeding to me for “further appropriate action” consistent 10
with the Second Circuit’s decision. Specifically, the Board directed that I “afford the parties
an opportunity to present evidence on the remanded issue subject to those limits generally
approved by the court….” Id.6
I held a hearing on the remanded issues on various dates between June 26 and 15
September 20, 2012. Thereafter, counsel for the Acting General Counsel and for Respondent
Arthur Salm filed briefs.7 Having considered the testimony and evidence and the parties'
briefs and arguments made at the hearing, I issue the following supplemental decision.
The Issue on Remand20
As noted above, the Board, in its remand order, directed that I “afford the parties an
opportunity to present evidence on the remanded issue subject to those limits generally
approved by the court.” 357 NLRB No. 164, supra. In remanding the case, the Court of
Appeals held that, post-Hoffman, an employer may question discriminatees regarding their 25
immigration status. However, the court also recognized the Board’s right to preserve the
integrity of its proceedings by fashioning evidentiary rules regarding such questioning. The
only guidance provided by the court with respect to such “evidentiary rules” can be found in
the following quote:
30

issued another Second Supplemental Decision and Order, from a three-member panel, reaffirming the
earlier two-person decision. Domsey Trading Corp. IV, 355 NLRB 520 (2010).
6 While this case was pending before the Board and the court, the Respondent went out of business
and liquidated its assets. The General Counsel, in a separate proceeding before a different
administrative law judge that was also part of the compliance phase of this case, sought to pierce the
corporate veil and hold Arthur Salm, an owner of the Respondent, personally liable for the backpay
award. On December 30, 2011, the Board issued its Third Supplemental Decision and Order finding
Salm personally liable. Domsey Trading Corp. V, 357 NLRB No. 180 (2011). The Court of Appeals
enforced this order on January 30, 2013. Estate of Arthur Salm v. NLRB, 12-378-cv(L) (2013). The
other owners of the company have entered into settlement agreements contingent on a finding that
Arthur Salm was personally liable.
7 The Respondent corporate entities no longer exist. Respondent Arthur Salm appeared by counsel
at the remanded hearing. Salm died on October 8, 2012, after the close of the hearing. His counsel has
continued to represent his estate in this matter.
JD(ATL)–13–13
4
The only limits the Board may place on cross-examination are the usual limits the
presider may place on cross-examination. Such a limit may, for instance, require
an employer, before embarking on a cross-examination of a substantial number of
claimants, to proffer a reason why its IRCA-required verification of immigration
status with regard to a particular claimant now seems questionable or in error.5
636 F.3d at 38.
In Flaum Appetizing Corp., 357 NLRB No. 162 (2011), issued the same day as the
remand order in this case, the Board addressed the procedural requirements for raising an 10
immigration related affirmative defense after Hoffman Plastics, supra. The Board noted the
rationale of the Second Circuit in this case, including the court’s recognition of the Board’s
right to fashion rules preserving the integrity of the Board’s processes. The Board concluded
that an employer raising immigration status of discriminatees as an affirmative defense must
lay an evidentiary foundation for questioning a discriminatee’s eligibility for backpay based 15
on his or her immigration status. To hold otherwise would allow a respondent to abuse the
Board’s processes by essentially engaging in a baseless fishing expedition and thus shift the
burden onto the General Counsel to prove that every discriminatee was either a U.S. citizen or
documented immigrant.
20
Following the Board’s remand, I held several conference calls and allowed the parties
to submit memoranda in order to determine how to provide the Respondent the opportunity to
question the discriminatees while ensuring that the integrity of the Board’s processes,
particularly in a backpay proceeding, were preserved.8 The General Counsel argued that there
were no more than 33 discriminatees whose immigration status was open to question based on 25
the record from the prior hearing. In contrast, counsel for Respondent Arthur Salm insisted
that, to comply with the Court’s remand, it was necessary to recall all of the discriminatees
who could still be located. Before the hearing opened and during the hearing, I offered the
Respondent an opportunity to come forward with evidence that would establish an evidentiary
foundation for questioning the disriminatees, noting that some of the discriminatees were 30
citizens, others had their immigration status determined in prior decisions in this case and that
there was evidence from an expert witness called by Respondent at the initial compliance
hearing suggesting that a large number of discriminatees had valid social security numbers
during their employment with the Respondent. In addition, discriminatees who were hired
after enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 would have been 35
required to furnish documents establishing their authorization to work in this country when
hired.9 In the case of those individuals, the Respondent should provide at least some basis for
questioning the validity of documents it previously found acceptable when it hired them.
Nevertheless, throughout these proceedings, Respondent Arthur Salm, through counsel,

8 Nothing in the court’s decision disturbed the longstanding rule in compliance proceedings that
this issue, as any other issue that would reduce or eliminate a backpay award, is a respondent’s burden
to plead and prove. Flaum Appetizing Corp., supra, slip op. at 4. See also NLRB v. Mastro Plastics
Corp., 354 F.2d 170, 178 (2d Cir. 1965); NLRB v. Brown & Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 458 (8th Cir.
1963); Hansen Bros. Enterprises, 313 NLRB 599, 600 (1993).
9 That statute imposed penalties on employers who knowingly hired undocumented aliens and
required submission of proof of work authorization for all new employees.
JD(ATL)–13–13
5
demanded that all discriminatees be required to appear at the hearing on remand. The only
concession Respondent ultimately made was to agree that discriminatees whose status had
already been determined by stipulation or decision would not have to testify again.
Before opening the hearing on remand, I ruled that the Respondent would be limited to 5
questioning those 33 discriminatees identified by the General Counsel, absent some proffer of
evidence that would justify recalling any additional discriminatees to answer questions
regarding their immigration status. By the close of the hearing, the Respondent had not come
forward with any such evidence. As will be shown, there is sufficient evidence in the record
to make a determination as to the immigration status of all of those discriminatees who are not 10
missing.
Evidence Regarding Immigration Status
As noted previously, Respondent, during the initial compliance hearing, called an 15
expert witness on the social security system, Andrea Azarm. She did an analysis of the social
security numbers of all of the discriminatees that the Respondent had on file and prepared a
report showing whether the numbers were valid and whether more than one individual had
utilized a particular number. Her report showed that 117 of the discriminatees had valid
social security numbers. Although such evidence is not conclusive as to the question of lawful 20
immigration status, it was some evidence that those individuals were authorized to work in
this country. Absent contrary evidence, one may infer that the individual holding a valid
social security number was authorized to work during the backpay period.
In addition to this evidence, the Respondent had been permitted at the first compliance 25
hearing to question employees who were hired before enactment of the IRCA of 1986 on the
basis that the Respondent would not have examined their immigration status before it was
legally required to do so by that statute. There were 14 discriminatees in this category who
were in fact questioned by the Respondent’s then-counsel.10 As to three discriminatees whose
backpay period was brief, the Respondent’s then-counsel waived its right to question them 30
regarding their immigration status during the first compliance hearing.11 As noted above, in
the First Supplemental Decision in this case, the Board had remanded the issue of the
immigration status of six discriminatees. The documented status of three of those individuals
was resolved in the Second Supplemental Decision.12
35
As noted, my prehearing ruling limited the number of discriminatees who would be
recalled to testify to 33, absent a showing, never made, that additional discriminatees were
subject to further examination regarding their immigration status. At the opening of the

10 Virgelie Anier, Inovia Brutus, Ghislane Caristhene, Marie Jean Charles, Therese Jean, Leanna
Joseph, Marie Rose Joseph, Nevius Lambert, Jean Michelet Louisma, Marie Louisma, Marie
Mondestin, Milton Allan Ramos, Antoinette Romain, and Monique Samedy.
11 Ana Hernandez, Feliciano Reyes, and Marie Thelismond.
12 Atulie Balan, Bardinal Brice, and Marie Jose Francois were found to have been legally
authorized to work based on a stipulation of the parties. The General Counsel withdrew the backpay
claims of two individuals, Michelet Jean Exavier and Rose Marlene Ste. Juste. The sixth, Rene
Geronimo, had gone missing after the first hearing and his status could not be determined.
JD(ATL)–13–13
6
hearing on remand and during the hearing, the Acting General Counsel withdrew the backpay
claims of the following nine discriminatees based on an administrative determination that they
did not have authorization to work during the backpay period:
Eloge Jean Baptiste5
Marie C. Camille
Adrian Castillo
Rufino Guity
Marie May Joseph
Hilda Medina10
Rufino Norales
Oscar Nuñez
Agare Victor.
After the hearing closed, counsel for the Acting General Counsel requested, by motion, to 15
withdraw the claim of a 10th discriminatee, Andreze Andral. I hereby grant that motion.
During the course of the hearing, after several witnesses had testified and based on
documentation provided by counsel for the Acting General Counsel, the Respondent
stipulated that the following 15 individuals were legally authorized to work in this country 20
during all or part of the backpay period:
Francois Alexandre Joseph Aris
Eugenie Charles Anne Cidieufort
Gertha Denaud Jean Joseph Eliacin (a/k/a Jean 25
Bonny)
Eduardo Roman Feliciano Luis Ramos Frederick
Marie Gressau Evodia Joseph
Idiemise Lovinske Marie Narcisse
Juana Peralta Romulo Ramirez30
Kathy Touissaint13
In addition to those discriminatees whose status was determined at the remanded
hearing by stipulation or withdrawal of their claims, there were two other discriminatees, and
the daughter of a third who had died since the first compliance hearing, who were questioned 35
under oath by counsel for Respondent Arthur Salm at this hearing:
Jean Sigay Pierre had been missing at the time of the first compliance hearing. He
appeared at the hearing on remand pursuant to subpoena and testified regarding his
immigration status as well as his efforts to find interim employment during the backpay 40
period. Pierre admitted that when he first came to the United States from Haiti in 1980 he

13 Touissaint had been missing at the time of the first hearing. When she appeared at the hearing
on remand, the Respondent was given the opportunity to question her regarding her immigration status
as well as her efforts to find interim employment during the backpay period. The Respondent
stipulated to her lawful immigration status and elected not to question her regarding mitigation issues.
JD(ATL)–13–13
7
was not legal. He testified that he was fleeing oppression in Haiti along with many others.14
Pierre was arrested in Florida, where he entered the country, but ultimately was released and
obtained work authorization papers, including a social security card and green card in 1981.
The report by the Respondent’s expert, Azarm, confirms that this number was issued in
Florida in 1980 or 1981. Pierre produced his alien registration card (i.e., his “green card”) 5
and the parties stipulated that it showed he was admitted to this country on January 1, 1982,
well before the backpay period. Pierre also testified that he looked for work during the
backpay period. Although he could not recall any specifics regarding his search for work
more than 20 years ago, documents produced by the General Counsel show that he did find
interim employment, with Forward Industries, in the second quarter of 1991. The Respondent 10
offered no evidence to rebut Pierre’s testimony or to show that the alien registration card and
social security number Pierre presented at the hearing were not valid. Accordingly, I find that
the Respondent has not met its burden of showing that Jean Pierre Sigay was ineligible for
backpay under Hoffman Plastics Compound v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002). I also find that
Pierre’s testimony is sufficient to show that he attempted to mitigate backpay by seeking and 15
obtaining interim employment during the backpay period, I note that his lack of recall is
understandable due to the extraordinary passage of time since the backpay period. See
Laredo Packing Co., 271 NLRB 553, 556 (1984); United Aircraft Corp., 204 NLRB 1068,
1068 fn. 4 (1973).
20
Jose Valentin is another discriminatee who had been missing at the time of the first
compliance hearing but was located by the General Counsel in time to testify at the remanded
hearing. He appeared pursuant to subpoena and was questioned under oath regarding his
immigration status. Although given an opportunity to question him regarding his efforts to
find interim employment, counsel for Respondent did not do so. According to Valentin, he 25
came to the United States from Honduras on February 24, 1987. His father was already living
here and arranged for his entry into the country. Valentin produced his alien registration, or
“green,” card and the parties stipulated that it showed he was admitted on February 24, 1987,
and that it is valid through April 15, 2018. Valentin also produced his social security number
and testified that it is the only number he has used since 1987. The report by the Respondent’s 30
expert, Azarm, also revealed that the social security number provided by Valentin to the
Respondent during his employment was issued in 1987. The Respondent offered no evidence
to contradict Valentin’s testimony, nor did the Respondent attempt to show that the green card
produced at the hearing was not valid. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has not met its
burden of showing that Jose Valentin was ineligible for backpay under Hoffman Plastics, 35
supra. Because Respondent chose not to question Valentin regarding mitigation issues, it has
not met its burden of showing any willful loss of earnings or other failure to mitigate backpay.
Marie Ahrendts testified at the initial compliance hearing but had passed away by the
time of the remand. Her daughter, Betty Ahrendts, appeared and testified regarding her 40
mother’s immigration status. Betty Ahrendts testified that her mother came to the United
States from Haiti in 1976 when her father, who was already here, sent for her. Betty Ahrendts
testified that her mother received her green card at the airport and that she had authorization
to work during the backpay period. The Respondent offered nothing to contradict this

14 I will take notice that Haiti was ruled by the Duvalier regime at the time that Pierre and many of
the other Haitian employees came to the United States, seeking freedom.
JD(ATL)–13–13
8
testimony and I find no reason to discredit it. The testimony is consistent with evidence that
the General Counsel obtained from the Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS), to be discussed infra, regarding the status of individuals
who enter the US as a relative of a permanent resident or citizen. Accordingly, I find that the
Respondent has not met its burden of proving that Marie Ahrendts was ineligible for backpay 5
under Hoffman Plastics, supra.
Finally, five of the discriminatees who were required to appear and testify at the
hearing on remand did not appear, despite having been subpoenaed by counsel for the Acting
General Counsel. Counsel for the Acting General Counsel has requested that they be treated 10
as missing discriminatees and that any backpay they are owed be placed in escrow in
accordance with Starlite Cutting I, 280 NLRB 1071 (1986), as clarified in Starlite Cutting II,
284 NLRB 620 (1987). Counsel for the Respondent argues that an adverse inference should
be drawn from their failure to appear and no backpay should be awarded to these
discriminatees.15
Counsel for the Acting General Counsel, at my request, placed in evidence the
subpoenas that were served and the report of attempts at service. The documents in evidence
do not show that four of the five ever received the subpoenas.15 Although sent to each
discriminatee’s last known address, they were either left at the front door, or returned as 20
undeliverable, or signed for by someone else. As the Board noted in the Second Supplemental
Decision, addressing Geronimo’s absence during the first remand
Because the General Counsel could not locate Geronimo, we cannot know why
Geronimo failed to participate in the remand proceeding. Thus, it would be 25
inappropriate to draw an adverse inference from his absence.
Domsey Trading Corp. III, 353 NLRB 86, 87 (2008).
The facts regarding Rachelle Louissaint, the other discriminatee who failed to appear, 30
are somewhat different. There is no dispute that she received the subpoena to appear at the
opening of the remanded hearing in June. Counsel for the Acting General Counsel spoke to
her at that time and gave her a date and time to appear. Counsel spoke to her again, after she
did not show up on her scheduled date and reported that Louissaint had explained that she did
not come to the hearing because she had been unable to get the day off from work. At my 35
instruction, counsel for the Acting General Counsel served another subpoena on Louissaint to
appear when the hearing resumed in September after a hiatus. This time, the delivery service
reported that the subpoena had been left at the front door at the same address where
Louissaint had received the first subpoena. Louissaint did not appear, nor did she attempt to
contact counsel. Efforts by counsel for the Acting General Counsel to contact her were 40
unsuccessful. Under these circumstances, I conclude that this is not the case of a “missing”
discriminatee, but rather of a witness who has been located but does not wish to testify.
Accordingly, I shall draw an adverse inference from Louissaint’s failure to appear per
subpoena on two occasions and shall deem her ineligible for backpay.
45

15 Rene Geronimo, Nilda Matos, Alta Meuze, and Marcos Pitillo.
JD(ATL)–13–13
9
As briefly noted above, the record contains evidence obtained by counsel for the
Acting General Counsel from USCIS. This evidence consists of a sworn statement from
Trisha Sparrow, identified as a Supervisory Immigration Services Officer for Adjudications at
the DHS USCIS National Benefits Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. At the request of
counsel for the Acting General Counsel, Sparrow had reviewed the records of USCIS to 5
determine the status of 11 discriminatees whose names were submitted by counsel for the
Acting General Counsel. Counsel for the Respondent, while noting that there were
foundational and admissibility issues with respect to Sparrows’ declaration, stated on the
record that he accepted it as factual. Based on the facts contained in Sparrow’s statement, the
Respondent stipulated to the eligibility of a number of the discriminatees, as set forth above. 10
In addition, based on information provided by Sparrow, counsel for the Acting General
Counsel withdrew the claim of one of the discriminatees.
While not objecting to Sparrow’s statement, counsel for the Respondent requested that
I direct the Acting General Counsel to make a similar request for information regarding the 15
immigration status for all remaining discriminatees whose backpay claims were still
outstanding and whose status had not been resolved. Counsel for the Acting General Counsel
objected on the basis that the Respondent had not met its burden of showing a basis for
questioning the immigration status of the remaining 100 plus discriminatees. After careful
consideration, and tempted by the prospect of an efficient means of resolving any question 20
regarding the discriminatees’ immigration status, I nevertheless rejected the Respondent’s
request. Nothing in the court or the Board’s decisions remanding this case overturned the
well-established precedent regarding the parties’ respective burdens in a compliance case. I
was concerned with establishing a dangerous precedent if I were to require the General
Counsel in this case to submit the names of all of the remaining discriminatees to USCIS in 25
order to determine whether each had authorization to work in this country during the backpay
period. To do so would essentially shift the burden to the General Counsel in a backpay
proceeding to prove that a discriminatee was eligible to receive backpay under Hoffman
Plastics, supra. Such a change in precedent is for the Board to decide. Accordingly, I adhere
to my ruling denying the Respondent’s request.30
CONCLUSION
Having resolved the issue with respect to the immigration status of the 33
discriminatees for whom a legitimate question was raised on remand, and the Respondent not 35
having come forward with any evidence that would warrant subjecting the remaining
discriminatees to further inquiry regarding their immigration status during the backpay period,
I conclude that the amount owed to each of the named discriminatees is as set forth in the
attached appendix A and that the Respondent must pay those amounts, with interest, to
comply with the Board’s Order in the underlying unfair labor practice case.40
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended16

16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)–13–13
10
ORDER
The Respondent, Domsey Trading Corporation, Domsey Fiber Corporation, Domsey
International Sales Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, and Arthur Salm, individually, their 5
officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall pay to each of the discriminatees named in
attached appendix A the amounts set forth opposite their respective names, with interest at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily
as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
10
The Respondent. Domsey Trading Corporation, Domsey Fiber Corporation, Domsey
International Sales Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, and Arthur Salm, individually, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay the amounts set forth in appendix B
opposite the name of each missing discriminatee to the Regional Director for Region 29 of the
National Labor Relations Board, with said amounts to be held in escrow for a period not to 15
exceed 1 year from the date the Respondent complies with this order by making such
payment, or the date the Board’s Supplemental Decision and Order becomes final including
any enforcement thereof. At the end of the 1-year period, funds deposited in the name of any
discriminatee whom the General Counsel has still not located shall be returned to the
Respondent and the backpay award shall lapse as to that individual unless the individual 20
demonstrates at a later date some compelling reason for failing to come forward within the
escrow period.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 22, 2013
25
Michael A. Marcionese30
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX A
Last Name First Name Net Backpay
Abreu Rosa 1,664.00
Adolphe Jean Max 10,320.20
Ahrendts Marie 4,208.00
Alexandre Francois 6,143.55
Amador Cesar 148.37
Andre Andrea 588.00
Anier Viergelie 4,716.00
Aris Joseph 7,627.75
Armand Marie Rose 5,313.00
Arzu (Zapata) Alberto 2,574.64
Augustin Marie 7,004.38
Balan Atulie 5,500.95
Balan Jean 6,917.40
Jean Baptiste Ronald 700.00
Benoit Gerda 3,658.00
Bernard Gladys 3,454.00
Blanc Edaize 1,408.60
Bonny Eliacin Jean Joseph 3,714.15
Brice Bardinal 4,401.00
Brutus lnovia 7,438.00
Camille Claire 554.23
Camilus Gertha 6,396.00
Carasco Solange 564.00
Caristhene Ghislaine 5,815.55
Casseus Marie 5,545.36
Castillo Simion 5,738.87
Castor Rose Marie 1,817.54
Ceptus Wilner 8,182.15
Charles James Anthony 12,150.55
Charles Brigitte 586.50
Charles Cecile 3,319.82
Charles Eugenie 783.40
Jean-Charles MarieS. 4,014.94
Choute Alourdes 3,278.00
Cidieufort Anne 2,176.00
Contreras Ana 5,590.00
DeLeon Jose 6,802.00
Delva Christian 7,578.30
Denaud Gertha 5,534.00
Denis Jesula 5,338.11
Dormetus Francesca 196.03
Dormeville Antoine L. 928.75
Duvivier Adeline 2,213.75
Estivaine Marie 2,044.00
Feliciano Eduardo Roman 6,843.00
Fleurimonde Yvette 368.00
Flores Marion D. 3,952.00
Jean Francois Marie 5,457.10
Frederick Luis Ramos 3,241.25
Georges Murat 1,562.60
Gomez Rafael 59.84
Gresseau Marie 6,528.35
Guerrier Banilia 4,777.00
Guervara Tomas 291.00
Guity Pablo 1,254.00
Hernandez Ana 6,008.00
Heurtelou Yolanda 6,976.00
Jacques Marie 320.00
Jean Louis P. 767.82
Jean Therese 6,633.10
Joseph Acces 4,033.14
Joseph Clorina 380.00
Joseph Evodia 4,416.00
Joseph Ghislaine 4,341.07
Joseph Julmene 4,793.00
Joseph Leanna 5,323.51
Joseph Marc Olyns 5,040.00
Joseph Marie Rose 3,101.77
Kernizan Ucemeze 4,118.86
Lacayo Maximo 2,584.75
Lacrois Mimose 323.63
LaFleur Mureille 665.40
Lambert Nevius 5,456.55
Leconte Marie 1,031.44
Louisma Marie 8,747.11
Louis Alma 456.85
Louis Marie N. 493.28
Louisma Jean Michelet 3,994.53
Lovinske Idiemese 644.00
Mack Andrew 570.00
Malbranche Pierre 855.69
Massena Jesula 384.00
Mathieu Marie Nicole 7,848.67
Mauvais Rose Andre 1,293.38
Midy Jean Demard 8,687.20
Mondestin Marie 4,001.33
Narcisse Marie 6,988.00
Olivier Jean 2,893.00
Olivo Carolina 1,008.00
Peralta Juana 2,650.00
Philogene Josette 576.00
Pierre Jean Sigay 21,628.13
Pierre Marie 412.00
Pierre-Louis Ludovic 5,958.50
Porsenna Miracia 6,047.46
Ramirez Romulo 2,970.21
Ramos Milton 7,516.00
Ramos Orlando 4,123.00
Reyes Chano 1,040.00
Raymond Loficiane 460.00
Raymond Violette 5,760.00
Robinson Giles 28,376.29
Rochez Rene 4,232.58
Rodrigue Eddy 344.00
Romain Antoinette 2,605.80
Romain Marie 216.00
Rousseau Marie 4 7 4 . 3 0
St. Felix Margarett 2,938.26
Saintval Joseph 3,462.34
Samedy Monique 2,736.00
Simon Richard 1,460.20
Suazo Justo 6,578.44
Surin Pierre-Antoine 255.40
Thelismond Marie 530.69
Thomas Anna 156.00
Toussaint Kathy 4,519.49
Valentin Jose L. 3,116.00
Vaval Josette 6,916.00
Velasquez Victor 8,007.18
Virgile Joseph 2,087.15
Virgile Wilfrid 460.00
Williams Lourdes 1,781.25
Zama Auguste 460.00
Zama Dieulenveuz 5,107.78
Zama Mulert 4,916.75
Total Located 4 8 5 , 0 4 0 . 2 6
APPENDIX B
MISSING DISCRIMINATEES
Aquilar, Dennis 5,298.15
Arzu, Longina 8,356.00
Boni, Hubert Florent 8,176.00
Camille, Bertha 8,889.40
Castro, Marcial Santos 8,889.40
Chiekh, Sy 8,416.00
Cyprien, Jean Robert 8,296.00
Delhia, Immacula 8,416.00
Devillar, Mercedes 8,416.00
Desinor, Mezinette 7,360.00
Diawara, Alama Amine 41.25
Diego, Aparicia 6,952.00
Dorcius, Voltaire 8,856.25
Dunn, Jerome 8,308.00
Estimond, Wilmide 8,416.00
Figueroa, Hipolito 10,600.00
Frederique, Marc 8,416.00
Germaine, Michelet 8,416.00
Geronimo, Rene 8,435.20
Gonzales, Jose 12,958.50
Gonzalez, Jose L. 12,587.50
Hernandez, Maximo 8,416.00
Idiessa, Sako 8,416.00
Labissiere, Lourdes 8,416.00
Lacombe Jean 8,416.00
Louis, Marc Dala 8,889.40
Mayadou, Diankha 8,416.00
Martinez, Eduardo 8,416.00
Mathurin, Fernande 5,186.00
Matos, Nilda 6,996.00
Meredith, Emilio 8,416.00
Meuze, Alta 10,812.00
Miranda, Miguel Flores 7,016.75
Morales, Roberto 10,076.63
Nuñez-Reyes, Irene S. 8,416.00
Ortiz, Jose Angel 8,416.00
Ortiz, William 9,168.25
Osias, Freda 8,889.40
Palacios, Alejandro 6,798.00
Pierluisse, Reynaldo 845.00
Pierre, Jacqueson 12,091.95
Pitillo, Marcos 7,180.39
Senteno, Laborian 8,680.00
Verrier, Imanite 6,916.00
Total Missing 359,789.42
Total for all discriminates 844,829.58