The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred and that the responding parties were related employers under common control or direction.
The union argued that a 'key person' from a unionized company left and subsequently started a new, non-unionized company in the same industry, thereby transferring the 'business'.
The Board found that the individual was no longer a 'key person' at the time of his departure, as the original company continued to grow and prosper without him.
Furthermore, due to a significant hiatus between his departure and the formation of the new company, there was no common control or direction.
The application was dismissed.
