Opinion ID: 531844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prestige's Successorship Liability

Text: 24 While the Secretary's contention that the Commission misstated the law governing successorship liability is correct as an initial matter, the Commission did apply the correct legal test in the alternative. 15 As set out by the Commission, the multiplicity of factors [relevant to the determination of] successorship in [ ] a labor context [include]: 16 25 (1) Whether the successor company had notice of the charge, (2) the ability of the predecessor to provide relief, (3) whether there has been substantial continuity of business operations, (4) whether the new employer uses the same plant, (5) whether he uses the same or substantially the same work force, (6) whether he uses the same or substantially the same supervisory personnel, (7) whether the same jobs exist under substantially the same working conditions, (8) whether he uses the same machinery, equipment and methods of production and (9) whether he produces the same products.... 26 J.A. 15. 27 The Secretary's contention that substantial evidence supports a finding of Prestige's successorship liability under the multifactor test merits little discussion. 17 Applying the test to the facts of this case, the Commission's contrary conclusion is clearly reasonable. The Commission found that: 28 Prestige's mine is a surface mining operation whereas S & M was an underground operation [factor 5]. Prestige's mine is located a mile and a half from S & M's mine and Prestige mines under a different coal lease [factor 4].... Only two of Prestige's eight employees were employed previously by S & M [factor 6].... [The two companies employ different supervisors, factor 7]. The machinery, equipment and mining methods of Prestige and S & M are not the same [factor 8].... 29 Because Sec. 823(d)(2)(C) of the Act vests the Commission with the authority to overturn ALJ factfindings that are not supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the Commission's finding that Prestige is not a successor-in-interest to S & M and therefore is not jointly and severally liable for S & M's unlawful discharge of Keene.