The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

West (D) was a Florida corporation doing business as an electrical contractor. Carole Ann Paolicelli (D) was the company's owner, sole shareholder, and president. Her husband, Paul Paolicelli (D) directed all of West's (D) daily operations. Mr. Paolicelli (D) made personal loans to West (D) and used his personal credit card to order materials and equipment for the company. In addition, the Paolicellis (Ds) often issued checks from their personal joint checking account to meet the payroll, and Mrs. Paolicelli (D) allowed employees to use her personal car for company business. For approximately six months, West (D) funds were used to pay the rent on Mr. Paolicelli's (D) apartment. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 728 filed a charge of unfair labor practices against West (D). P filed a complaint against West (D). The complaint was later amended to add the Paolicellis (Ds) as alter egos of the corporation. P found that West (D) refused to hire three job applicants because of their union membership; created the impression that union activities were under surveillance; interrogated employees about union membership; prohibited employees from discussing the union; and threatened to assign union supporters more burdensome job duties. An ALJ concluded that West (D) engaged in at least the minimum amount of commerce required to invoke the P's jurisdiction; that West (D) committed unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA; and that Paolicellis (Ds) were alter egos of West (D) and were therefore also liable for the violations. West (D) was administratively dissolved on August 26, 1994, for failure to file an annual report under Florida law. The Paolicellis (Ds) continued to operate the business as usual under the name West (D) until it was reinstated as a corporation on October 25, 1995. West (D) has not operated as a business since its reinstatement. Ds filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision, but P entered a final order. Ds appealed, raising only the jurisdictional and alter ego issues.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.