Court Opinion

ID: 2963927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:36.104034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:52.933612
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 28, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1642

                        ASOCIACI N DE MAESTROS DE PUERTO RICO,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                           NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                                     Respondent.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1740
                           NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                    ASOCIACI N HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO, INC., ET AL.,

                                     Respondent.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                 ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER

                        OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Zaida Prieto Rivera, with whom Cancio, Nadal, Rivera & Diaz was
             ___________________            ____________________________
        on brief for Asociacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico.
             Fred L. Cornnell, with whom Frederick L. Feinstein, General
             ________________            ______________________
        Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, and Aileen A.
                 __________                                 _________
        Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, were on brief for NLRB.
        _________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                          2

                    Per  Curiam.   Asociaci n  de Maestros  de Puerto  Rico
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          ("AMPR") petitions for review of a National Labor Relations Board

          order  which determined  that  AMPR and  Asociaci n Hospital  del

          Maestro, Inc. ("the Hospital")  constitute one employer under the

          so-called "single employer" doctrine.   See Penntech Papers, Inc.
                                                  ___ _____________________

          v. NLRB, 706  F.2d 18, 25 (1st Cir.), cert.  denied, 464 U.S. 892
             ____                               _____  ______

          (1983).    In the  companion case,  the National  Labor Relations

          Board applies for enforcement.

                    As the record discloses substantial evidentiary support

          for  the "single employer" finding; see 29 U.S.C.   152(2) (Supp.
                                              ___

          1995);  Penntech Papers, Inc., 706 F.2d at 22-25, and the Board's
                  _____________________

          subsidiary findings  are not  challenged,1 we uphold  the "single

          employer" ruling, dismiss the petition for review in No. 95-1642,

          and direct enforcement of the Board's order. 

                    SO ORDERED.  See Loc. R. 27.1 (1st Cir.).
                    SO ORDERED
                    __ _______   ___

                              
          ____________________

               1We  note, nonetheless, that  whether the  "single employer"
          label  fits may well depend in some  measure on the nature of the
          underlying unfair labor practice claim.  In the present case, the
          dispute concerned whether financial information about one company
          should  be  disclosed in  connection  with collective  bargaining
          between  the other company and its union.   We have little diffi-
          culty in  concluding that  the relationship between  these compa-
          nies,  viewed  in  light of  this  unfair  labor practice  claim,
          afforded  ample  basis for  the Board  order.   Whether  the same
          result should obtain in  the context of a different  unfair labor
          practice claim need not be decided.

                                          3