Extract
Domsey Trading Corp., (2011)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
Domsey Trading Corporation, Domsey Fiber Corporation and Domsey International Sales Corporation, a Single Employer and International Ladies2019 Garment Workers Union, AFL2013CIO and Local 99, International Ladies2019 Garment Workers Union, AFL2013CIO Cases 292013CA201314548, 292013 CA201314619, 292013CA201314681, 292013CA201314735, 292013 CA201314845, 292013CA201314853, 29-CA-14896, 292013CA2013 14983, 292013CA201315012, 292013CA201315119, 292013CA2013 15124, 292013CA-15137, 292013CA201315147, 292013CA2013 15323, 292013CA201315324, 292013CA201315325, 292013CA2013 15332, 29-CA201315393, 292013CA201315413, 29-CA2013 15447, and 292013CA201315685December 30, 2011THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS BECKER AND HAYESThis is the latest chapter in protracted litigation over remedial issues arising out of the Board2019s finding that the Respondent unlawfully failed to timely offer reinstatement to nearly 200 of its employees who had engaged in an unfair labor practice strike. The question now before us is whether to pierce the corporate veil of the Respondent in order to hold its principal shareholders derivatively liable for the backpay and interest owed those employees. The judge found that the Acting General Counsel failed to justify this extraordinary measure. We find merit in the Acting General Counsel2019s exceptions.1 1 On February 14, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green issued the attached third supplemental decision. The Acting General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Arthur Salm filed an answering brief. Salm also filed a cross-exception, which is argued in his answering brief.The National Labor Relations Board has considered the third supplemental decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to adopt the judge2019s rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this third supplemental decision and Order.The Acting General Counsel has excepted to certain of the judge2019s credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.We note that the Acting General Counsel initiated this phase of the proceeding by way of a notice of hearing, a method not provided for in the Board2019s Rules and Regulations. The substantive allegations in the notice of hearing, however, are those that would be made in an amended compliance specification, and treating it as such will not I. BACKGROUNDThe background of this case is described in the judge2019s decision, so we only briefly summarize here and supplement as necessary. The Respondent, comprising Domsey Trading Company, Domsey Fiber Corporation, and Domsey International Sales Corporation, was engaged in the business of exporting and selling used clothing and textiles. The principal owners of the Respondent were Arthur Salm, with a 48-percent ownership interest, and Albert Edery, with a 50-percent interest.2 This case originated in a 1989 organizing drive among the Respondent2019s employees. Ultimately, the employees went on strike, and...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
