PULVÉRISATEURS - Tecnoma

Balakrishnan is actually owed $8,035.71 in back wages (or an additional $1,730.77) andTrimbakkar is owed $15,420.10 (or a reduction of $1,730.77) in back wages. HT at 215-216. 3 The ALJ then found that Balakrishnan and Trimbakkar worked for Synergy,without any legitimate leaves of absence, from February 1, 2001, until the end of October2001. D. & O. at 17-20. Therefore, the ALJ held that Synergy owed Balakrishnan andTrimbakkar the amounts that the Administrator calculated, but he reduced the amountsowed to each by $500 to account for the remaining portion of the $1,500 “advance loan”they each had received but never was deducted from their subsequent wages orpaychecks. D. & O. at 20, 22. Finally, the ALJ concluded that Synergy willfully failedto pay Balakrishnan and Trimbakkar required wages for nonproductive time in May andJune 2001 and, therefore, adopted the Administrator’s recommended civil money penaltyof $5,000 against Synergy. D. & O. at 21. 4 Synergy filed a timely petition for review.See 20 C.F.R. § 655.655.JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEWThe Administrative Review Board (ARB or the Board) has jurisdiction to reviewan ALJ’s decision concerning the INA. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2) and 20 C.F.R. §655.845. See also Secretary’s Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002)(delegating to the ARB the Secretary’s authority to review cases arising under, inter alia,the INA).Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Board, as the designee of theSecretary of Labor, acts with “all the powers [the Secretary] would have in making theinitial decision . . . .” 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(B) (West 1996), quoted in Goldstein v. EbascoConstructors, Inc., 1986-ERA-36, slip op. at 19 (Sec’y Apr. 7, 1992). The Boardengages in de novo review of an ALJ’s INA decision. Yano Enters., Inc. v.Administrator, ARB No. 01-050, ALJ No. 2001-LCA-0001, slip op. at 3 (ARB Sept. 26,2001); Administrator v. Jackson, ARB No. 00-068, ALJ No. 1999-LCA-0004, slip op. at3 (ARB Apr. 30, 2001). See generally Mattes v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 721 F.2d3The ALJ erred in stating that the Administrator indicated that Balakrishnan wasactually owed $8,035 in back wages, as a review of the hearing transcript reveals that theAdministrator indicated that Balakrishnan was actually owed $8,035.71 in back wages, or anadditional .71 cents. HT at 215-216.4The ALJ also determined that, while the weight of the evidence did not establish thatSynergy failed to make the LCA at issue available for public examination pursuant to 20C.F.R. § 655.760(a), Synergy did fail to send Balakrishnan and Trimbakkar copies of theLCA by their first day of work in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 655.734(a)(3). Like theAdministrator, the ALJ did not impose any civil money penalty for the violation. D. & O. at21-22. The parties do not contest these findings.USDOL/OALJ REPORTER PAGE 4