Meddin Enterprises, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 137 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

MEDDIN ENTERPRISES 137
P0l ner,- or, Ruth Welborn, as alleged in paragraph , 7 of the complaint ; nor has it
interfered with, restrained , or coerced its employees by any acts or conduct other
than those found herein to have been conimitted in violation of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.1 .
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage, membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , A. F. L., or in any other labor organization of
our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of their employment.
WE WILL offer to Mary Page immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights previously enjoyed , and make her whole, for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against her.
WE WILL make whole Joyce Westmoreland, Elizabeth L. Bradley, Emma
Warden, and Lyda B. Palmer for any loss of pay suffered as a result of their
discriminatory suspension on June 17, 1954.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their activities on behalf
of International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; nor will we
threaten our employees with loss of employment or with other reprisals for
engagi}Ig in union and/or concerted activities.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming members
of any labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by
agreements in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended October 22, 1951.
SOLO CUP COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
-altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Meddin Enterprises , Incorporated and Meat Cutters, Packing-
house and Allied Food Workers Union , Local 433, AFL.
Case No. 10-CA-1938. September 01, 1955
RULING ON APPEAL
On January 11, 1955, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
Sidney L. Feiler in the above-entitled proceeding for the purpose of
adducing evidence and considering arguments with respect to whether,
in light of the Board's 1954 standards, the Respondent's operations
have a sufficient impact upon interstate commerce to warrant the exer-
cise of jurisdiction. The hearing was then adjourned sine die without
consideration of the merits of the complaint in order to permit the
Trial Examiner to rule on the jurisdictional issue on the basis- of a
114 NLRB No. 30.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
detailed record. Briefs were filed with the Trial Examiner by the
Respondent and the Charging Union.
On June 22, 1955, the Trial Examiner issued an Opinion and Order
on Motion to Dismiss Complaint in which he denied the Respondent's
application to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and ordered the hear-
ing resumed with respect to the *merits. The Respondent filed a
written request with the Board dated July 18, 1955, for special per-
mission to appeal tinder Section 102.26 of the Rules and Regulations
from the Trial Examiner's ruling. The Union submitted a document
on August 5, 1955, entitled "Objection of Charging Union to Appli-
cation of Respondent for Permission to Appeal From Ruling of Trial
Examiner." On August 15, 1955, the Executive Secretary advised
all parties that the Board had granted the Respondent's request.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing with respect to the specific issue involved herein and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Opinion
and Order on Motion to Dismiss Complaint, copy of which is attached
hereto, the documents submitted by the Respondent and the Union,
which have been treated as briefs in support of, and in opposition to,
the motion to dismiss, respectively, and the entire record in the case
as it concerns the jurisdictional issue. The Board agrees with the
Trial Examiner, for the reasons fully explicated in his Opinion and
Order, that the operations of Respondent, Meddin Enterprises, Incor-
porated, and the partnerships of Meddin Brothers, Savannah, Geor-
gia, and Meddin Brothers, Macon, Georgia, engaged in wholesale and
retail distribution of meat and meat products, constitute an integrated
enterprise; I that the operations of these concerns should, therefore,
be considered in their totality in determining their impact upon com-
merce, and that, as the total out-of-State purchases or direct inflow of
Meddin Enterprises, Incorporated, Meddin Brothers, Savannah,
Georgia, and Meddin Brothers, Macon, Georgia, for the year 1953 was
$523,844.47 and for the year 1954 was $544,251.83, the $500,000 direct
inflow test of the Jonesboro case 2 is satisfied and the assertion of
jurisdiction by the Board herein is thus warranted. Accordingly,
the ruling of the Trial Examiner denying the motion to dismiss the
complaint and ordering a resumption of hearing on the merits of the
complaint is hereby affirmed.
1 Youngstown Tent and Aawhng Company, 110 NLRB 835; Sanitary Mattress Company,
109 NLRB 1010.
2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case first came on for hearing in June 1954 before another Trial Examiner.
During the hearing a settlement was reached and a stipulation entered into, sub-
ject to the approval of the Board . On September 21, 1954, a Board Order was
MEDDIN ENTERPRISES 139
issued in which it was noted that prior to Board- consideration of the stipulation the
Board revised its standards for the exercise of jurisdiction and the facts set forth in
the stipulation did not establish that the operations of the Company had a sufficient
impact upon interstate commerce to warrant the exercise of Board jurisdiction. The
stipulation was rejected.
While the settlement stipulation was pending before the Board, the General Counsel
filed with the Trial Examiner a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
the evidence adduced at the hearing and the facts set forth in the stipulation "show
that the business operations of the respondent [Meddin Enterprises] fail to meet any
of the Board's present standards for the assertion of jurisdiction." The Trial Ex-
aminer denied the motion on the ground that the General Counsel, by entering into
the stipulation, had waived the right to file a motion, such as his motion to dismiss,
pending action by the Board on the stipulation.
After the Board rejected the settlement stipulation, a Trial Examiner was desig-
nated in the case. The General Counsel renewed his motion to dismiss the com-
plaint. The Union filed a memorandum in opposition in which it urged the denial
of the motion and the resumption of the hearing for the further consideration of evi-
dence on jurisdiction. The Respondent Company filed an "argument" in support
of the motion. On November 8, 1954, the Trial Examiner issued an order denying
the motion to dismiss complaint and ordered a resumption of the hearing.
Thereafter, postponements were granted at the request of the parties to enable
them to confer and review the books and records of the Company for the purpose
of shortening the hearing. The hearing was resumed on January 11, 1955. By agree-
ment of the parties, that session was devoted entirely to consideration of evidence
and argument on the issue of jurisdiction. Subsequently, a brief was filed by the
Union urging that the Board has and should assert jurisdiction over the Respondent.
The Respondent filed a brief and a reply brief arguing that jurisdiction should not be
asserted in this case.
On June 16, 1955, the parties filed a stipulation in which they agreed that six
letters received from companies with whom the Respondent does business should be
"received and treated as evidentiary in all respects the same as though duly identified
and received in evidence in this case."
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is now and has been at all times material hereto a corporation
organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, having its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Savannah, Georgia. It was organized in 1950
as a consolidation and successor to Meddin Investment Company, a real estate and
investment company, and Meddin Packing Company, a company engaged in the
purchasing of livestock, processing it, and selling the resulting products and products
bought to supplement its own production to wholesalers, grocery concerns, and other
large organizations. Meddin Packing, in turn, is a successor to a packing firm
organized in 1917 and which was headed by one of the Meddin family.' Meddin
Packing Company has been continued as a division of the Respondent and the unfair
labor practices set forth in the complaint are alleged to have been committed at its
plant beginning in February 1954.
A. Sales volume
1. Direct outflow
The basic factor affecting direct shipments of Meddin Enterprises to points out-
side Georgia is that it does not comply with Federal regulations governing food
prepared for human consumption and, therefore, cannot ship products to other
States. It can and does ship materials destined for animal consumption or for other
uses to points outside Georgia. In 1953 its total direct sales or outflow to points out-
side Georgia- was $37,234.32; in 1954, it was $24,759.24. However, the Board's
standard for the assertion of jurisdiction on direct outflow is $50,000 or more.2
Therefore, the direct outflow of the Respondent is not sufficient to come within this
standard.
1 The findings herein are based almost wholly on the testimony of Gerald Meddin, a vice
president of the Respondent and plant superintendent of Meddin Packing Company ;
exhibits prepared from the books and records of the Respondent ; and stipulations entered
into during and after the hearing There is no substantial dispute as to the underlying
facts, but there is a sharp dispute over the conclusions to be drawn from them.
2 Jonesbot o Gt ain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Indirect outflow
The Union contends, and the Company denies, that the volume of sales of the
Company satisfies the indirect outflow standards established by the Board' for the
assertion of jurisdiction. These standards, as announced in Jonesboro Grain Drying
Cooperative, supra, are as follows:
(4) Indirect outflow standard: An enterprise which furnishes goods or services'
to other enterprises coming within subparagraph (2)3 above, or to public utili-
ties or transit systems , or instrumentalities or channels of commerce and their
essential links, which meet the jurisdictional standards established for such
enterprises; and (a) Such goods or services are directly utilized in the products,
services, or processes of such enterprises and are valued at $100,000 or more:
or (b) Such goods or services, regardless of their use, are valued at $200,000
or more.
The following sales figures were submitted by the Union as properly includible in
the computation of the indirect outflow of the Company:
1953 1954
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co------------------ $23,510.72 $54, 860. 36-
Colonial Stores_________________________________ 30, 008. 39 38, 656. 04
Setzer & Company______________________________ 3,996.22 11, 627.59
Armour & Company____________________________ 1,032.67 3,493 65
Swift & Company______________________________ 8,063.31 7,273.71
Blue Ridge Hide & Fur Co---------------------- 39, 355. 76 28, 670. 97
Southern Marine Supply Co., Inc----------------- 10, 419 99 18, 714. 57
Total____________________________________ 116, 387.06 4 163, 296. 89
If the admitted direct outflow totals are added to the
above5 _____________________________________ 37,234.32 24,759.24
Total____________________________________ 156, 621. 38 188, 056. 13
the total is well above the minimum $100,000 standard which it is contended is ap-
plicable to these sales.
The Respondent sells Blue Ridge Hide and Fur Company in Georgia hides in
a "green" state These hides are processed by Blue Ridge and then sold to tannery
brokers. Blue Ridge annually ships merchandise valued in excess of $300,000 to
points outside Georgia. Sales of the Respondent to Blue Ridge are properly in-
cludible in the indirect outflow computation.6
Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Colonial Stores, and Setzer and Company are
large retail grocery chains operating retail outlets in more than one State. Each does
business in an amount in excess of the requirement for jurisdiction over the chain
as a whole. The Respondent supplies meat products to some of their local outlets
in Georgia. The Board has held that in applying its jurisdictional standards there
should be excluded from the types of sales to be taken into account sales to local
units operating as integral parts of multistate enterprises unless a local unit itself
has 'sufficient inflow or outflow to warrant jurisdiction over it.7 Therefore, it must
be found that the individual units of these grocery chains to which sales were made
each satisfies the Board's jurisdictional standards before sales to each can be in-
cluded in the computation. These standards are set forth in J. R. Knott and Hugh
H. Hogue d/b/a Hogue and Knott Supermarkets, 110 NLRB 543. The Trial Ex-
aminer has studied the stipulation submitted by the parties and concludes that the
material submitted does not establish that any of the retail establishments supplied
by the Respondent independently satisfies the Board's jurisdictional requirements.
Accordingly, sales to these grocery chains may not be used in the computation
herein.
3"(2) Direct outflow standard * An enterprise which produces or handles goods and
ships such goods out of State, or performs services outside the State in which the enter-
prise is located, valued at $50,000 or more."
4 For present purposes, sales by Meddin Brothers, a partnership, Savannah, Georgia,
to Savannah Ship Chandlery & Supply Co in the sums of $4,241 27 in 1953 and $3,359.91
in 3 954 have not been included in the computation. The contention that the Respondent
and Meddin Brothers , Savannah , have integrated operations will be considered later.
Sales of Meddin Packing to Savannah Ship totaled $78 75 in 1953 ; there were none in 1954.
s The Brass Rail Inc, 110 NLRB 1656
Dallas Gihij Packing Company, 112 NLRB 63
7 National Gas Company, 99 NLRB 273, 276; Frank Smith d Sons, 100 NLRB 1382.
MEDDIN ENTERPRISES 141
The Zespondent sells meat items tb the Savannah branches of Swift & Company
acid Armour & Company. Each of these branch 'establishments 'ships,in excess of
$50,000 to points outside Georgia. Therefore, since these branch establishments
meet the jurisdictional requirements. applicable to their business,8,sales by the-Re-
spondent to them are properly includible in the computation.9
In summary, the total of direct and indirect sales claimed to be properly includible
in the computation was:
1953 1954
$153,621.38 $188,056.13
However these figures included sales to retail units of grocery chains in the sum of:
1953 1954
$57,515.33 $105,143.99
If these figures are deducted from the gross sums, the resultant figures for both
years are less than the minimum $100,000 requirement.
B. Purchases of the Respondent
The Board will assert jurisdiction, under its "direct inflow" standard, over an enter-
prise which receives goods or materials from out of State valued at $500,000 or
more.10 In 1953, purchases in this category by the Respondent totaled $402,-
237.29,11 including freight charges. In 1954, the total, including freight and some
livestock purchases, was $349,980.81.12 The totals, for each of those years; there-
fore, are substantially below the required amount.13
II. THE INTEGRATION OF THE RESPONDENT'S OPERATIONS WITH THAT OF OTHER FIRMS
The Union contends that the operations of the Respondent, Meddin Enterprises,
Incorporated, are integrated with those of three other concerns owned by members
of the Meddin family and their purchases should be considered in the computation.
These concerns are all partnerships and all use the name "Meddin Brothers." One
is located in Savannah, Georgia; one in Macon, Georgia; and one in Charleston,
South Carolina.
Originally, five brothers, Isaac, Alec, Aza, Elliott, and Hyman Meddin each
owned an interest in Meddin Packing Company, now a division of the Respondent,
Meddin Enterprises, Incorporated. In 1926, these brothers formed Meddin Brothers
at Savannah. In 1934, Meddin Brothers, at Charleston, South Carolina, was estab-
lished. An arrangement was then made whereby one of the brothers, Hyman Med-
din, withdrew from Meddin Packing Company and Meddin Brothers, Savannah, in
exchange for a substantial interest in the Charleston firm. In 1950, the Respondent
8 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, supra
9 Frank Smith at Sons , 111 NLRB 241.
'0 Jonesboro Graaia Drying Cooperatie, supra
'i Total' out-of-State purchases shown on Union 's Exhibit No 4 (addition
on Union 's Exhibit No 4 is $4.10 too small ) ---------------------- $450,496.11
Total freight shown on Union's Exhibit No. 4----------------------- 19, 283. 94
469, 780. 05
Less purchases claimed by Respondent to be local -------------------- 67, 542 76
Net Total---------------------------------------------------- 402,237.29
12 Total out-of-State purchases shown on Union's Exhibit No 4 (addition
is $0 50 too small) -------------------------------------------- $358, 195.59
Total freight shown on Union's Exhibit No. 4----------------------- 13, 462. 03
371, 657. 62
Less purchases claimed by Respondent to be local------------------- 23, 775. 21
347,882 41
Plus' out-of-State livestock purchases (Union's Exhibit No 5) --------- 2,098.40
Total ------------------------------------------------------- 349,980 81
13 No contention has been made under the "indirect inflow" standard
142, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
corporation was formed as successor- to- Meddin Packing Company and Meddin In-
vestment Company. Thereafter, the interests of, members of the family in the Re-
spondent and ' its packing operations was evidenced by shareholding interests. In
1951, Meddin Brothers, Macon, was formed.
The interests of members of the family in the different firms are shown in the,
following table:
Meddin Enterprises,
Inc , d/b/a Meddin Pack-
mg Company
Meddin Broth-
ers, a partnership
(Savannah,
Georgia)
Meddin Broth-
ers, a partnership
(Macon,
Georgia)
Meddin Broth-
ers, a partnership
(Charleston,
South Carolina)
Isaac Meddin_______-__ President - Director, Partner, 30% Partner, 20% Partner, 221%
Alec Meddm________-__
5161/1 shares.
Vice President-Director,
interest
Partner, 30%
interest
Partner, 20%
interest.
Partner, 22%
Aza Meddin_______-____
494 ^ j shares.
Vice President-Director,
interest
Partner, 15%
interest.
Partner, 20%
interest
Partner, 16%
Elliott Meddin_______-_
634'ii shares
Secretary - Treasurer -
interest
Partner, 15%
interest
Partner, 20%
interest
Partner, 15%
Gerald Meddin (son of
Director, 550dd shares.
Vice President-Director,
interest
Partner, 10%
interest
Partner, 20%
interest.
Partner, 10%
Isaac). 58135 shares Plant interest interest. interest.
HymamMeddin-------
Superintendent
------------- ---- ------------------ Partner, 25%
Matilda K. Meddin 319 shares_______________ ------------------ ---------- -------
interest.
(wife of Isaac).
Arnold R Meddin (son 214)ishares _____________ ------------------ ------------------
of Isaac).
Audrey Meddin Pearl- 21491 shares_____________ ------------------ ------------------
man (daughter of
Isaac).
Sadie S Meddin (wife
of Alec).
Adele Meddin Schnei-
der (daughter of
Alec)
Phyllis Meddin Fields
(daughter of Alec).
David L. Meddin (son
of Alec).
341 shares _______________
21490 shares _____________
21431 shares_____________
2143tshares _____________
There are special factors in the relationship of each of the partnerships to the
Respondent. However, there are the following common factors:
None of the partnerships maintains a packinghouse. Each obtains its meat sup-
plies from Meddin Packing Company or other sources. Each acts as a jobber or
wholesaler of meat or meat products.
The Respondent and the partnerships do not have a common vacation, pay scale,
or workweek policy. The three Georgia concerns do have a common hospitalization
plan. Purchases are made by the local managers. However, what products shall
be stocked and in what amounts are the subject of common discussion since an ef-
fort is made to carry brands that other packers do not handle. However there is no
interchange of employees or centralized hiring. Each manager does his own hiring
and firing. One auditor prepares tax returns for all of the partnerships, while an-
other firm of auditors prepares returns for the Respondent.
A description of the operations of each of the partnerships and their relationship
to the Respondent is as follows:
Meddin Brothers, Savannah, Georgia: Meddin Brothers, at Savannah, Georgia,
operates a plant for the sale of meat products and a freezing plant. Alec Meddin
is in charge of the operations and devotes his full time to this business. Business
is solicited from hotels, restaurants, boardinghouses, institutions, and retail customers.
Frozen food lockers are maintained for the accommodation of customers and meat
is cut and packaged for retail customers.
There is no competition between the Respondent and Meddin Brothers, Savannah,
for local trade. By agreement the partnership solicits customers in the categories
mentioned while the Respondent sells to supermarkets and other large concerns.
MEDDIN ENTERPRISES 143
Meddin Brothers, Savannah, maintains its own bank account and payroll records
for the approximately 10 employees on its payroll. No reports are submitted to
the Respondent from this concern. Alec Meddin exercises full authority over oper-
ations and the partners -receive an annual statement of operations. He draws a sal-
ary; the other partners do not.
-Out-of-State purchases by this firm were $80,925.24 in 1953 and $82,544.24 -in
1954. Shipments from Meddin Packing Company to the firm totaled $263,127.18
in 1953 out of a total of $437,000. In 1954, the totals were about 20 percent
smaller because 'Meddin -Brothers '(Savannah) 'had to move to other quarters and
did less business during the changeover period.
Meddin Brothers, Macon, Georgia: There is a resident manager at the Macon
operations, Harold H. Mayfield. He directs daily operations and the work of the
approximately 15 employees. A separate bank account is maintained in Macon
and the payroll is prepared there. Gerald Meddin goes to Macon each Friday to
confer with Mayfield on operations and plans.
The general ledger of this partnership is kept at the office of Meddin Packing
Company and Mayfield sends weekly reports to Meddin Packing Company. Its
bookkeeper reconciles the statements and prepares checks for all amounts over
$200 for signature by Gerald or Isaac Meddin.
No charge is made to the Macon firm for the time Gerald Meddin and the book-
keeper of Meddin Packing Company spend on Macon business.
Out-of-State purchases for this partnership totaled $40,681.94 in 1953 and
$111,726.83 in 1954. Shipments from Meddin Packing Company to the firm totaled
$512,469.54 in 1953 out of a total of $656,000 and $529,393.91 in 1954 out of a
total of over $600,000.
Meddin Brothers, Charleston, South Carolina: -Hyman Meddin supervises opera-
tions at Charleston. He exercises full authority and does not submit any reports
other than an annual statement. He draws a salary and he and the other partners
share in the profits.
Out-of-State purchases by this partnership are in excess of $100,000 annually.
Shipments by Meddin Packing Company to this firm were $20,490.71 in 1953 and
$3,038.00 in 1954. As previously noted, these sales could not include meat for hu-
man consumption since Meddin, Packing Company products are not federally in-
spected. Items such as dog food made up these shipments.
At times Meddin Packing Company and this firm join in buying carload lots,
each taking the share it needs. This occurs approximately once a week. Such joint
purchasing is substantial. In 1953 Meddin Packing Company's share of such pur-
-chasing was $243,991.72 and in 1954 the total was $211,136.66.
Contentions of the Parties; Conclusions
The Union contends that there is common ownership and control of the Respond-
ent and the partnerships, they supplement each other and are fully integrated, and
therefore, these operations constitute a single enterprise or employer and jurisdiction
should be asserted on that basis. The Respondent contends that there is no such
integration. In its brief, it stresses certain factors of independent operation in the
following language:
What are the facts? The Employer concerned in this case is Meddin Packing
Company, a trade name of Meddin Enterprises, Incorporated. It is located
on Louisville Road in Savannah. The testimony is that the employees who
are parties to this case have no connection whatsoever with either of the partner-
ship businesses. The testimony is that there is no unified system of purchases,
but that each business makes its own purchases. There is no centralized hiring.
There is no uniformity of hours, wages, benefits, or vacations among the three
distinct businesses. There is no transfer ever of an employee from one business
to another. The books of the three businesses are separate and distinct. The
.bank accounts are separate and distinct. Different people manage and operate
the three different businesses. Their tax returns are prepared by different ac-
countants. There is' no overlapping of invoicing; each business has its own
set of books and does its own billing through its own distinct employees. There
is no joint delivery of merchandise. The nature of the businesses is different.
Meddin Brothers of 1501 East Broad Street in Savannah is operated by Alex
Meddin. The evidence is that "Mr. Alex Meddin makes all of his own decisions
at Meddin Brothers on East Broad Street". The manager of the business at
Macon, Harold Mayfield, "can hire and fire." In short, there is an overlapping
of ownership, but there is no community of operation in any sense of the word.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel for the Union and the Respondent have briefed the issue of integration
in detail. However, while there are many cases in which this issue has been raised and
discussed, the ultimate decision is based primarily on the factual circumstances of the
particular case and a combination of factors. Since no two cases are exactly alike,
prior cases can only serve as guides indicating factors the Board has deemed relevant
in resolving the issue. Some of the factors the Board has stressed in finding that inte-
gration does exist for jurisdictional purposes are: substantial identity of ownership
and control of companies, and related nature of operations;14 a company serving as
retail outlet of products manufactured by parent company where there was central-
ized bookkeeping operations, but local autonomy in supervision and management,15
a wholly owned subsidiary engaged in the same business as the parent company and
purchasing a substantial amount of its supplies from the parent company.16
The Respondent maintains, in its brier, that the same decision is warranted here
as in the case of Consolidated Gas Company of Savannah, 107 NLRB 148. In that
case the issue for determination was whether or not the operations of a holding com-
pany and five wholly owned subsidiaries each engaged in the sale of bottled gas were
all part of a single integrated enterprise constituting a single employer. The Board
found that the holding company selected sources of supply for its subsidiaries and
prepared and allocated funds for mutual advertising programs. It further found that
except for these factors and some interlocking of directors, the companies were con-
ducted as separate enterprises. It concluded that despite a single ownership control
all the corporations operated independently and not as part of a single integrated
enterprise with common operational and labor relations policies.17
The Consolidated Gas case is distinguishable from the instant case in that the
central company of all the companies involved did no manufacturing or distribution,
but was solely a holding company. Here, the Georgia partnerships act as dis-
tributors of the products of the packing operations of the Respondent. They serve
as vital links in the chain of distribution from the purchase of cattle until final' sale
at wholesale and retail.18 The interlocking ownership renders impossible the kind
of arm's length dealing which is possible among independent enterprises. While the
Respondent and the partnerships are separate legal entities this factor cannot serve
as a bar to the consideration of the integrated nature of the operations.19
The Respondent has placed great reliance on the asserted separateness of operation
and management of the partnerships and the corporation from one another. How-
ever, factors exist which tend to show an essential unity between the Respondent
and the partnerships. The Respondent's packing plant serves as a source of supply
for the Georgia partnerships. Meddin Brothers, Savannah, obtains more than 60
percent of its supplies from the Respondent; Meddin Brothers, Macon, obtains over
90 percent from the Respondent. The Respondent and the partnerships try to stock
the same brands and sources of supply are agreed upon, although each organization
places its own order. There also is cooperation among them on the sharing of
carload purchases. In the Savannah area, the Respondent and the local partnership
have an arrangement to avoid competition for customers. There is a close interlock-
ing family ownership common to all these concerns. The operations of the Savannah
partnership are under the direct control of one of the family, but there is a close
business tie between it and the Respondent. The tie is much closer in the case of
the Macon partnership. Essential bookkeeping operations are performed for the
Macon partnership by the Respondent and the general manager of the Respondent's
packing company regularly devotes 1 day a week to overseeing the operations of the
Macon concern and' to settle major questions of policy. While there is a good deal
of autonomy in the handling of the labor policies of each concern; there is a common
hospitalization plan.
14 F Hilgemeier & Bro , Inc., 108 NLRB 352, packing plant held integrated with a cold
storage plant and a frozen food company
>6 Youngstown Tent and Awning Company, 110 NLRB 835
1e Aabel Corporation d/b/a Kleber Glass 4 Mirror Company, 111 NLRB 180.
17 See, to the same effect. Modern Linen 4 Laundry Service, Inc, 110 NLRB 1305;
Toledo Service Paikinq Company, 96 NLRB 263, Orkin "The Rat Man," Incorporated,
112 NLRB 762
Compaie, N L R B v Shawnee Drilling Co , 184 F 2d 57, 58 (C. A 10)
19 N L it B v Stowe Spinning Company, 336 U S 226, 227, Gifford Hill & Company,
Inc, 90 NLRB 428, 431 (company engaged in operation of sand and gravel plant and spur
railroad, hauling the products to main line railroad, found to constitute integral part of
multistate operations of company selling and marketing these products, there being inter-
locking ownership and management).
RED DOT FOODS , INC. 145
Basically, the Respondent operates a packing plant and distributes its production
by its own sales force and through the Savannah and Macon partnerships. Func-
tionally the Georgia partnerships operate as branches of the Respondent and they
jointly form a continuous chain from production to wholesale and retail distribution.
Although it is apparent that there is much local autonomy in each concern, in
determining the effect of the operations of the Respondent upon commerce, their
full impact cannot be determined without considering also the operations of the
two Georgia partnerships who function as outlets for its products. The Trial
Examiner therefore concludes that the Respondent and Meddin Brothers, at Savannah,
and Meddin Brothers, at Macon, are functionally integrated and the operations of
those concerns must be considered in their totality in determining the impact of
their operations upon commerce.
The barrier of a State boundary has prevented a similar integration of the opera-
tions of the Respondent with those of the partnership at Charleston, South Carolina.
Shipments from the Respondent to the Charleston concern are small. There are
the ties of family ownership and some joint functioning, but there is no integration
establishing a chain of production and distribution such as exists between the
Respondent and the other two partnerships. The Trial Examiner therefore concludes
that the operations of Meddin Brothers, at Charleston, South Carolina, are not
integrated with those of the Respondent and should not be considered in deter-
mining the question of jurisdiction.
If the out-of-State purchases or direct inflow of the Respondent and the Meddin
Brothers partnerships in Savannah and Macon, Georgia, are totaled the result is as
follows
1953-
Direct inflow Respondent---------------------------------- $402,237.29
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Savannah)------------------- 80, 925. 24
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Macon)--------------------- 40, 681. 94
Total------------------------------------------------- 523,844.47
1954-
Direct inflow Respondent--------------------------------- 349, 980. 81
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Savannah) ------------------- 82, 544. 24
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Macon) --------------------- 111, 726. 83
Total------------------------------------------------- 544,251.88
Thus total direct inflow in each of the years which could be used as a base for
calculation was in excess of the $500,000 direct inflow requirement set forth in the
Jonesboro case, supra.20 The Trial Examiner therefore concludes that the opera-
tions of the Respondent when considered as an integrated enterprise with the Georgia
partnerships satisfy one of the criteria established by the Board for the assertion of
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the application to dismiss these proceedings for want of
jurisdiction is denied.
It is further ordered that this hearing shall be resumed on the merits on Tuesday;
August 9; 1955, at 9:30 a. m., in the United States Post Office and Federal Building,
Savannah, Georgia.
20 National Gas Company, 99 NLRB 273, 276, reversed on other grounds 215 F 2d 160
(C A 8) , F M Reeves and Sons, Inc., 112 NLRB 295.
Red Dot Foods, Inc. and Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers,
Local No. 442, A. F. of L., Petitioner.
Red Dot Foods, Inc. and Lodge No. 1406, International Associ-
ation of Machinists , A. F. of L., Petitioner . Cases Nos. 13-RC-
4428 and 13-RC-4442. September 01, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert H. Cowdrill , hearing
114 NLRB No. 29.