The opinion
HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
I. In division I, discussing our scope of review, the majority recites with apparent approval Hoffman v. Iowa Dept. of Transp., 257 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Iowa 1977). But the majority then applies what appears to be a *436 different scope of review. I would again make it clear that, when an appeal is taken to us under section 17A.20, we give no special deference to the district court’s review of agency action. And we always review a district court’s determination of law, not for reasonableness, but for accuracy. Kurtenbach v. TeKippe, 260 N.W.2d 53, 54-55 (Iowa 1977).
II. I cannot agree that the district court was right in holding PERB was without jurisdiction. It seems clear that the N.L. R.B. does not claim coverage under the national act if the operations of a private employee are intertwined with and subject to the control of exempt governmental subdivisions. J-CE Co., 205 N.L.R.B. 578 , 84 L.R.R.M. 1215 (1973); Sis-Q Flying Service, Inc., 197 N.L.R.B. 195 , 80 L.L.R.M. 1315 (1972). Once joint employment is found to exist, the question becomes whether the public employer’s control over employment is such that the provisions of the statute can be efficaciously applied. Compton v. Nat. Maritime U. of America, 533 F.2d 1270 (1 Cir. 1976). I agree with the majority that the hospital did have sufficient control over employment under this test. The dispute was not pre-empted by the N.L.R.B.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that PERB’s assumption of jurisdiction, after finding joint employment, exceeded its authority. I do not find this question, as does the majority, to be one of law.
The majority cites two cases in the belief they stand for alternative holdings on the question: Herbert Harvey, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 137 U.S.App.D.C. 282 , 424 F.2d 770 (1969) and Ohio Inns, Inc., 205 N.L.R.B. 528 , 84 L.R.R.M. 1005 (1973). I believe that both of these cases explored the question of whether the public employer’s control over employment was such that the statute could be efficaciously applied. These were questions not of law but of fact. The differing facts of those cases resulted in opposite conclusions. We are not free to choose between those opposite factual conclusions in the belief they present alternative theories of law.
I believe there was substantial evidence to support PERB’s determination as to the hospital’s control over its employees. Accordingly, I think PERB can assert jurisdiction over the hospital.
On the whole record, I believe the finding of prohibitive practices by PERB was supported by substantial evidence. I would affirm.
UHLENHOPP, McCORMICK, and LARSON, JJ., join in this dissent.