
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          February 28, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                           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
