Opinion ID: 516427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the nlrb's decision

Text: 16 On December 16, 1987, in an extremely brief opinion, a divided panel of the NLRB affirmed the recommended order of the ALJ. The text of the opinion merely stated that the Board had decided to affirm the [ALJ's] rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. Morton, slip op. at 1 (footnote omitted). However, in a footnote to the word affirm, the majority briefly summarized the facts of the case, noting in particular Morton's good faith in dealing with the Union and Morton's change in operations. The Board concluded in the footnote that [u]nder the specific and unique facts of this case, we agree with the [ALJ's] conclusion. Id. at 2 n. 1. 3 17 One member of the Board dissented. She believed that the changes in operation had not substantially affected the employer-employee relationship or the employees' expectations of continued union representation. Regarding the change in operations, the dissenting member opined that the skills and qualifications required of the service and maintenance employees had changed little, despite the metamorphosis from a facility for the mentally retarded to a nursing home. Regarding the employees' continued expectations of union representation, the dissenting member referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 107 S.Ct. 2225, 96 L.Ed.2d 22 (1987). See Morton, slip op. at 3-5 (Cracraft, Member, dissenting). Fall River Dyeing held that a key focus in the successorship context was the legitimate expectations of the employees in continued union representation. 107 S.Ct. at 2236. The dissenting member did not, however, indicate whether the successorship doctrine provided the rule in this case, see Morton, slip op. at 5 & n. 4, or whether an allusion to the successorship was, as the ALJ claimed, justified. 18