Based on charges filed by the Union in early 1995, the Board issued a complaint in May 1995, amended in December 1995, against Brush and Diversified. The Administrative Law Judge held an evidentiary hearing and in August 1996 found that Diversified was the alter ego of Brush. The Board affirmed that determination. Whether Diversified is the alter ego of Brush is a question of fact. The Board's factual findings will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . . A number of different factors are relevant to the determination of alter ego status, including whether the two entities have substantially identical management, business purpose, operation, equipment, customers, supervision and ownership, and whether the decision to change companies was motivated by anti-union sentiment. No single factor, either by its presence or absence, is dispositive. The Board cites considerable evidence to support its alter ego finding. For example, there is clear evidence of common control.