```
      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                  United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit

                       ____________________

No. 97-2211

                   LOCAL 254, SERVICE EMPLOYEES
                  INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,

                  Petitioner, Cross-Respondent,

                                v.

                 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                  Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.

                       ____________________

                ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

              OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                       ____________________

                              Before

                      Stahl, Circuit Judge,

                    Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,

                    and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                       ____________________

     John D. Burke, with whom Gabriel O. Dumont, Jr. and Law Office
of Gabriel Dumont were on brief, for petitioner.
     Daniel J. Michalski, Attorney, with whom Fred L. Cornnell,
Supervisory Attorney, Frederick L. Feinstein, Acting General
Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, and Aileen A.
Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, were on brief, for
respondent.

                       ____________________
                          May 11, 1998

                       ____________________�      Per Curiam.  Local 254, Service Employees International
    Union, AFL-CIO ("the Union") petitions this court for review of
    a NLRB decision finding that the Union engaged in unfair labor
    practices, in violation of the "secondary boycott" provisions
    of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. � 158(b)(4)(ii)(B).  The Union's sole
    argument on appeal is that the Board erred in concluding that
    Massachusetts Bay Community College was not a "joint employer"
    of certain cleaning workers who were directly employed by Aid
    Maintenance Co., Inc., and that the Union's picketing and other
    activities at the College therefore did not constitute unlawful
    "secondary" activity.
        We do not agree.  The question whether the College was a
    "joint employer" of the Aid Maintenance cleaners is a factual
    one.  See Holyoke Visiting Nurses Ass'n v. NLRB, 11 F.3d 302,
    306 (1st Cir. 1993).  Having carefully reviewed the record and
    the parties' submissions, we conclude that the ALJ's decision
    on this factual issue, as adopted by the Board, is supported by
    substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.  The
    Board's order as it pertains to the Aid Maintenance case is,
    therefore, entitled to be enforced.
        We note, additionally, that this matter originally
    involved two sets of unfair labor practice charges, one filed
    by Aid Maintenance and the other by Women and Infants Hospital. 
    The Union has not petitioned for review of the Board's decision
    as to the charges filed by the Hospital.  Thus, the Board is
    also entitled to enforcement of its order as it pertains to the
    Hospital's case.
        For the reasons stated, the Union's petition is denied,
    and the Board's cross-application for summary enforcement is
    granted.
    
        So Ordered.
```