USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                  United States Court of Appeals

                      For the First Circuit



                       ____________________



No. 97-2211



                   LOCAL 254, SERVICE EMPLOYEES

                  INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,



                  Petitioner, Cross-Respondent,



                                v.



                 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,



                  Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.



                       ____________________



                ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER



              OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD



                       ____________________



                              Before



                      Stahl, Circuit Judge,



                    Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,



                    and Lynch, Circuit Judge.



                       ____________________



     John D. Burke, with whom Gabriel O. Dumont, Jr. and Law Office

of Gabriel Dumont were on brief, for petitioner.

     Daniel J. Michalski, Attorney, with whom Fred L. Cornnell,

Supervisory Attorney, Frederick L. Feinstein, Acting General

Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, and Aileen A.

Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, were on brief, for

respondent.



                       ____________________

                          May 11, 1998



                       ____________________      Per Curiam.  Local 254, Service Employees International

    Union, AFL-CIO ("the Union") petitions this court for review of

    a NLRB decision finding that the Union engaged in unfair labor

    practices, in violation of the "secondary boycott" provisions

    of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C.  158(b)(4)(ii)(B).  The Union's sole

    argument on appeal is that the Board erred in concluding that

    Massachusetts Bay Community College was not a "joint employer"

    of certain cleaning workers who were directly employed by Aid

    Maintenance Co., Inc., and that the Union's picketing and other

    activities at the College therefore did not constitute unlawful

    "secondary" activity.

        We do not agree.  The question whether the College was a

    "joint employer" of the Aid Maintenance cleaners is a factual

    one.  See Holyoke Visiting Nurses Ass'n v. NLRB, 11 F.3d 302,

    306 (1st Cir. 1993).  Having carefully reviewed the record and

    the parties' submissions, we conclude that the ALJ's decision

    on this factual issue, as adopted by the Board, is supported by

    substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.  The

    Board's order as it pertains to the Aid Maintenance case is,

    therefore, entitled to be enforced.

        We note, additionally, that this matter originally

    involved two sets of unfair labor practice charges, one filed

    by Aid Maintenance and the other by Women and Infants Hospital. 

    The Union has not petitioned for review of the Board's decision

    as to the charges filed by the Hospital.  Thus, the Board is

    also entitled to enforcement of its order as it pertains to the

    Hospital's case.

        For the reasons stated, the Union's petition is denied,

    and the Board's cross-application for summary enforcement is

    granted.

    

        So Ordered.