M.B. Sturgis, Inc. and Textile Processors, ServiceTrades, Health Care, Professional & Technical Employees International Union

The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion.

These cases involve the representational rights of animportant segment of the “contingent work force.” Specifically,in these cases, we address the question ofwhether and under what circumstances employees whoare jointly employed by a “user” employer and a “supplier”employer[FOOTNOTE 1] can be included for representationalpurposes in a bargaining unit with employees who aresolely employed by the user employer. Our considerationof this issue has caused us to reexamine two keyBoard decisions in this area: Greenhoot, Inc., 205 NLRB250 (1973), and Lee Hospital, 300 NLRB 947 (1990).As explained more fully below, Greenhoot stands for theproposition that where two or more otherwis e separateuser employers obtain employees from the same supplieremployer, and a union is seeking to represent the employeesin a single unit for the purposes of collectivebargaining with the user employers, the unit sought is amultiemployer unit and, under established principles ofmultiemployer bargaining, cannot be found appropriateabsent the consent of the affected employers. Lee Hospital,decided 17 years after Greenhoot, extended the holdingof Greenhoot to situations where a single user employerobtains employees from one or more supplier employersand a union is seeking to represent both thosejointly employed employees and the user’s solely employedemployees in a single unit. The Board ruled thatsuch units are also multiemployer in nature and thereforealso require employer consent.