Opinion ID: 540021
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the same supervisors are employed;

Text: 27 6. Whether the same machinery, equipment, and methods of production are used; and7. Whether the same product is manufactured or the same service is offered. 28 See Border Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., 204 NLRB 814, 818 (1973) (original formulation of the seven criteria); Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 43, 107 S.Ct. 2225, 2236, 96 L.Ed.2d 22 (1987) (recognizing the Board's seven criteria); American Press, Inc. v. NLRB, 833 F.2d 621, 626 (6th Cir.1987) (application of the seven criteria); Musikiwamba v. ESSI, 760 F.2d 740, 745-46 (7th Cir.1985) (same); Saks & Co. v. NLRB, 634 F.2d 681, 689 (2d Cir.1980) (same); United Tel. Workers, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 571 F.2d 665, 672 (D.C.Cir.1978) (same). 29 In particular, the seven factors which we have identified reveal that Systems must be held to have engaged in the same operation as had Pritchard. The record discloses that, although Systems employed part-time, rather than the full-time workers employed by Pritchard, Systems remained committed to the same type and nature of business as Pritchard operated and has merely substituted its part-time workers and management for Pritchard's full-time workers and management. Systems does not allege that a new technique was used or a new practice was employed or that a different product was manufactured or service offered. 10 30 Systems' defense is that the nature of the work force employed is sufficiently different from that employed by Pritchard that it should not be deemed a successor employer. Systems maintains that since it hires only part-time employees and only employees who seek no career in the janitorial business, Systems cannot be deemed a successor employer because the difference between part-time and full-time employees constitutes a substantial difference in the enterprise. We find this argument to be meritless. 31 Systems may not avoid its obligation under the Act to negotiate with a properly recognized union by merely changing the hours of work by its employees while still maintaining the same nature and type of services previously provided by Pritchard. To allow a successor employer to escape its duty to bargain notwithstanding the continuation of the identical business--in our case, using the same technique and supplies, servicing the same customers and supplying the same product, and indeed doing so in the same buildings--would eviscerate the doctrine of successor employer. 32 Systems fundamentally misunderstands the nature of being a successor employer. In order to prevent the label, and consequent obligations of, successor employer from attaching, a fundamental change in the nature of the business enterprise must occur. It must be more than a mere restructuring of the hours 11 or conditions of employment. 12 33 The First Circuit stated this principle aptly in NLRB v. Band-Age, Inc., 534 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1976) when it held: 34 The central question in a successorship case is whether there has been a change of ownership not affecting the essential nature of the enterprise, if no essential change is found the successor employer must recognize the incumbent union and deal with it as the bargaining representative. In deciding this issue the Board must examine the totality of the circumstances. 35 (Emphasis added) (citations omitted). 36 The indicia which we have recognized lead us to conclude that Systems continued the existence of the Pritchard enterprise, and that the difference in scheduling employees on a part-time, rather than a full-time basis, did not convert a continued enterprise into a new or a different one because the nature of the employment remained substantially and essentially the same as the business Pritchard had conducted. Moreover, if we were to hold that a mere reduction in working hours would negate the obligations of a successor employer we would encourage the intentional manipulation of a work force so as to eliminate the successor employer's obligation to negotiate. 37 Therefore, applying the seven factor analysis to the instant record leads to conclude that both of the criteria leading to successorship have been satisfied, and that accordingly, Systems must be deemed a successor to Pritchard. As such, Systems became liable under the Act for its discriminatory conduct.