NLRB v. Asociacion Hospital ( 1996 )

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          February 28, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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