Phil's Sav-Mart Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 835 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

PHILS SAV-MART SERVICE 835
Philip David Sachs and Michael Sachs, A Partnership,
d/b/a/ Phil's Sav-Mart Service : Peko Ltd; Sav-Co,
Inc. d/b/a Sav-Mart and Gary E. Waligorski and
David A. Templeman and Steve M. Noel and John
A. Pauline . Cases 14-CA-6540-1, 14-CA-6540-2,
14-CA-6540-3, and 14-CA-6540-4
October 19, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On the same date, January 2, 1968, Peko Ltd. and
Ben Sachs entered into an agreement wherein Ben
Sachs was to act as Peko's agent to supervise the
service station, and several others as well, for a weekly
salary of $100. The agreement also stated that Ben
Sachs was to "supervise" the four service stations as
an "independent contractor." There was no require-
ment in the agreement that Ben Sachs was to invest
any capital or share in any profits or losses.
After he had signed,his agreement with Peko
Ltd., Ben Sachs installed his son Philip Sachs as the
manager of the service station. Philip Sachs entered
into a consignment agreement and a sublease agree-
ment with Peko Ltd. The consignment agreement
guaranteed annual "profits" of $8,000 each year, sub-
On June 6, 1972, Administrative Law Judge '
Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief,
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only
insofar as consistent with this Decision.
1. Noting the absence of any exceptions, we
adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings that
both Sav-Co. Inc. d/b/a Sav-Mart and Peko Ltd. are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act;
that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction over their operations; and
that Sav-Co. and Peko Ltd. are so integrated as to
comprise a single enterprise.
2. We do not agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's further findings that Ben Sachs and Philip
Sachs are independent contractors, and that Phil's
Sav-Mart Service is not part of this single integrated
enterprise.
The record shows that Sav-Co. operates a shop-
ping center known as Sav-Mart in Collinsville, Illi-
nois, and that Phil's Sav-Mart Service, a relatively
small service station, hereinafter sometimes referred
to as "Phil's," is part of that shopping center. The
service station was built jointly by Sav-Co. and Mid
West Petroleum Co. in about 1967. After it was con-
structed, Sav-Co. leased it to Mid West Petroleum. On
January 2, 1968, Mid West Petroleum assigned the
lease to Peko Ltd?
ject to deductions for the employees' wages. There
was no requirement in the consignment agreement
that Philip Sachs was to invest any capital or share in
any profits or losses. Philip Sachs made a $52 capital
investment, only to provide petty cash for the initial
operation of the station. There was a requirement in
the consignment agreement that the station was rein-
statement.
On the morning of October 4, 1971, Baum was
called by Sidney Katz, who told him that Ben Sachs
would discuss Templeman's discharge at Baum's of-
fice. At the meeting, Ben Sachs told Baum that he
would reinstate Templeman; Templeman was subse-
quently reinstated as an employee.
On the evening of October 4, 1971, Charging Par-
ty Gary Waligorski was laid off by Harvey Sachs
shortly after he had finished a conversation with an-
other business agent for Local 971. The record gives
no reason for this, layoff. Immediately after he was
laid off, Waligorski was questioned by _Ben Sachs
about his union activities.
On October 8, 1971, Baum met with Harvey
Sachs at the station to ask him to sign a union agree-
ment. Harvey said that only his brother Philip could
sign a union agreement and agreed to forward the
proposed agreement to his brother Philip for signa-
ture.
On October 15, 1971, Baum learned that Philip
Sachs had not yet signed the proposed agreement;
Baum then called Sidney Katz, who said he would
settle the matter. On October 17, 1971, Ben Pessin, of
Sav-Mart/Peko, visited Harvey Sachs and asked him
to call Sam Pessin, another Sav-Co./Peko manager, to
see if the latter would represent Michael in the signing
of the agreement.
On October 23, 1971, the Charging Parties set up
a picket line to protest the layoff of Waligorski and
the imposition of stricter working rules by the
' The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law station's. management after it learned that its employ-
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
2 The record shows that Sav-Co is owned by Sav-Investment Corporation, The record also shows that Peko Ltd is owned by Ben Pessin, Sam Pessin,
Ben Pessin , Sam Pessm, Abe Osheroff, Sidney Katz, and Leroy Kopolow Abe Osheroff, and Sidney Katz.
199 NLRB No. 96
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees had organized. Harvey thereupon told Local 971
that Ben Sachs had told him Peko Ltd. wanted the
picket line down and the agreement signed. Harvey
promised that the contract would be signed on Octo-
ber 26.
On October 27, 1971, Sidney Katz called Baum
to tell him to call Ben Pessin. Pessin subsequently
assured Baum that to sell only those products fur-
nished by Peko Ltd. at prices fixed by Peko Ltd., and
that Peko Ltd. would pay all operational expenses of
the station save wages and salaries. The agreement
further provided that Philip Sachs would be reim-
bursed at the rate of 3 cents a gallon for all gasoline
sold.
In September 1971 Philip Sachs ceased to man-
age the station; Harvey Sachs took over the manage-
ment of the station for a weekly salary of $15. After
Harvey Sachs took over management of the service
station, his younger brother, Michael Sachs, a minor,
ran the bulk of the daily operations because Harvey
was completing his requirements for his master's de-
gree. In the subsequent course of the service station's
operation, Ben Sachs operated the station in
Michael's absence. The daily receipts of the station
were deposited in the safe of the adjacent Sav-Mart
store, from which Ben Sachs later withdrew them on-
a daily basis. Moreover, during the course of opera-
tions, the service station kept the same hours as the
adjacent Sav-Mart store, and the Sav-Mart store ad-
vertised for the station by means of coupons and a
public address system.
On September 29, 1971, the Charging Parties, all
employees of the service station, signed authorization
cards for Automotive, Petroleum and Allied Trades
Local 971, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, hereinafter referred to as Local 971.
On October 1, 1971, Harvey Sachs laid off one of the
employees, Charging Party David Templeman, alleg-
edly for "excessive shortages." At that time, Temple-
man told Harvey Sachs that the employees had
organized.
The next day, October 2, 1971, a business agent
for Local 971, Lester Baum, learned of Templeman's
discharge and called Sidney Katz, one of the manag-
ers of the Sav-Co./Peko operation, to obtain his rein-
statement. Baum threatened to set up a picket line at
the station. Katz asked that Baum delay establishing
such a picket line while Katz sought to arrange a
meeting to consider Local 971's request for
Templeman's the agreement would be signed on Oc-
tober 28; Baum then took down the picket line.
On October 28, 1971, Ben Sachs, Harvey Sachs,
and Michael Sachs met with Baum at Baum's office.
When Ben Sachs said that he would not participate in
the meeting with any of the Charging Parties present,
Baum called Sidney Katz again. Katz asked Baum to
tell Ben to come to the telephone, and Ben did so.
Shortly thereafter, Ben returned to the meeting and
said that the contract with Local 971 would be signed.
Michael Sachs thereupon signed his own name and,
with a rubber stamp, added Philip's name on the
agreement. Finally, at the very end of the meeting,
Michael Sachs said that all of the Charging Parties
were laid off.'
On the foregoing facts, the Administrative Law
Judge concluded that Ben Sachs and Philip Sachs
were independent contractors, and that the service
station was not part of the integrated Sav-Mart enter-
prise of Sav-Co. and Peko Ltd. Accordingly, he dis-
missed the complaint in its entirety, on the ground
that the service station, alone, was not shown to sat-
isfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Board.
Our consideration of these facts leads us to the
contrary conclusions.
The record shows that Ben Sachs recommended
that Peko Ltd. make his son Philip manager of the
service station; stopped at the Sav-Mart store each
day to pick up the cash receipts from the station; had
Templeman reinstated; engaged in questioning Wali-
gorski with regard to his union activities; assured Lo-
cal 971 that the collective-bargaining agreement
between Phil's and Local 971 would be signed; and,
in addition, operated the service station in Michael's
absence. Furthermore, there is no record evidence
that Ben Sachs was employed by anyone else or had
any other clients: that he had any capital invested in
the position, any chance of capital loss, or any chance
of obtaining any profits; or that he had any other
indicia of being an independent contractor.4 The last
clause in the contract between Ben Sachs and Peko
Ltd., which states that Ben is an "independent con-
tractor," is totally at variance with the demonstrable
facts in this case.' Accordingly, we conclude that Ben
Sachs and Philip Sachs are agents for the integrated
Sav-Mart enterprise operated by Sav-Co./Peko, and
they acted on behalf of Sav-Co./Peko particularly
with respect to labor relations policies .6
3 On December 31, 1971, Phil's Sav-Mart service station was closed.
4 See Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 173 NLRB 1366.
5 This clause appears to be motivated by Peko's desire to limit its tort
liability to third persons.
6 Our conclusion that Philip Sachs is an agent for the integrated Sav-Mart
enterprise is based on the following facts • Philip's sole capital investment was
$52, while he was there , Philip performed basically routine manual labor
along with the employees at the station ; Philip relinquished each day's re-
ceipts to Peko Ltd , and Philip was bound by his consignment agreement
with Peko Ltd to use only products furnished by Peko Ltd In effect, Philip
Sachs had virtually no capital investment, no risk of significant loss of cap-
ital, and , although there is evidence that Philip could assign work to employ-
ees, and make some profit, it is clear that he lacked the opportunity to make
decisions which would measurably increase his profit and he was limited with
regard to the means and manner in which he could manage Phil's as well as
with regard to the results of such management See Avis Rent -A-Car, Inc,
supra
PHILS SAV-MART SERVICE
We further conclude that Phil's service station is,
in fact, part of the integrated enterprise known as the
Sav-Mart shopping center, composed of Sav-Co.,
Peko Ltd., and Phil's Sav-Mart Service. We reach this
conclusion on several grounds. First, as noted above,
we have concluded that Philip Sachs and Ben Sachs
are not independent contractors. Second, there is am-
ple record evidence which impels us to the conclusion
that Sav-Co./Peko did, in fact, exercise substantial
control over the labor relations policies of Phil's.
Third, there is record evidence that there is integra-
tion of operations between Phil's and the adjacent
Sav-Mart store. We are persuaded by the common
management of the three concerns in the operation of
the shopping center, including the service station, and
particularly the common control of labor relations.'
The centralized control of labor relations appears to
lie with Sidney Katz, whom Business Agent Baum
contacted most frequently in connection with the la-
bor dispute at Phil's, and who apparently told Ben
Sachs to have the contract between Phil's and Local
971 signed. In prior cases where, as in the present case,
we have found common management and centralized
control of labor relations between ostensibly separate
concerns, we have held that they are, in fact, one
integrated enterprise.' Having found such factors in
this case, we conclude that Phil's Sav-Mart Service,
Sav-Co., and Peko Ltd. are, together, an integrated
enterprise.
Our conclusion that Sav-Co., Peko Ltd., and
Phil's Sav-Mart Service are one integrated enterprise
is also reinforced by facts showing a unified opera-
tion. Phil's kept the same hours as the Sav-Mart store.
Sav-Co. advertised for Phil's by means of coupons
and a public address system. Finally, the daily re-
ceipts of Phil's were deposited in a safe in the adjacent
Sav-Mart store owned by Sav-Co. In effect, Phil's was
held out to the public as an integral part of the Sav-
Mart department store, in the same manner as the
other lessees of the store.
3. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that
Phil's Sav-Mart Service is part of an integrated enter-
prise composed of Sav-Co., Peko Ltd., and Phil's Sav-
Mart Service, and, therefore, that the Board has juris-
diction to determine whether or not the Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged
in the complaint. Since the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision makes no findings on these allega-
tions, we shall remand this case to the Administrative
Law Judge for his issuance of a Supplemental Deci-
sion limited to consideration of these issues.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Administrative Law
Judge shall, on the evidence of the record as a whole,
837
prepare and serve on the parties a Supplemental Deci-
sion , containing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and recommendations with respect to the unfair labor
practice issues , and that , following the service of such
Administrative Law Judge's Supplemental Decision
on the parties , the case shall be transferred to the
Board and the procedures of Section 102.46 of the
Board ' s Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure , Series 8 , as amended , shall thereafter ap-
ply.
7 Sidney Katz, Ben Pessin , and Sam Pessin are officers in the integrated
enterprise known as Sav-Co /Peko.
8 Cowles Communications, Inc and Sufsun Co, Inc, 170 NLRB 1596.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E. WEIL, Trial Examiner: Charges were filed with
the Regional Director for Region 14 of the National Labor
Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, against Phil's
Sav-Mart Service, hereinafter called Respondent, on No-
vember 17, 1971, by Gary E. Waligorski and David A.
Templeman, and on November 18, 1971, by Steve M. Noel
and John A. Pauline. Each of the charges alleged, in sub-
stantially similar terms, the discharge of the Charging Party
and independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) by Respon-
dent. On January 11, 1972, the Regional Director issued an
order consolidating the four cases and a complaint alleging
that Phil's Sav-Mart Service was a partnership of Philip
David Sachs and Michael Sachs, and that it, together with
Sav-Co., Inc., d/b/a Sav-Mart, were joint employers and
constitute a single integrated enterprise. The complaint al-
leged that Respondent, by Supervisor Ben Sachs, violated
Section 8(a)(1) by interrogation and threats, and that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by the imposition of more
arduous working conditions on, and the layoff of, the four
Charging Parties because of their membership and activities
on behalf of the Union. Thereafter, Gary Waligorski filed
an amended charge naming as the Employer, Respondent,
Peko Ltd., hereinafter called Peko, and Sav-Co., Inc., d/b/a
Sav-Mart, hereinafter called Sav-Co., and alleging substan-
tially the same violations alleged in the individual original
charges. An amended complaint was issued by the Acting
Regional Director on March 21, 1972. By the duly filed
answers and by admissions at the beginning of the hearing,
Peko and Sav-Co. admitted the jurisdictional facts with re-
gard to those enterprises, but denied that they constitute an
integrated enterprise, together with Respondent, or that Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act. Respondent, by its duly filed answer, denied that it was
integrated with Peko or Sav-Co, that it was engaged in
commerce, or that Ben Sachs was an agent or supervisor of
Respondent, and that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. On the issues thus joined, the matter
came on for hearing before me on May 8, 1972. All parties
were present, or represented by counsel, and had an oppor-
tunity to adduce relevant and material evidence through
witnesses or documentary means . The parties had an oppor-
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tumty to argue at the close of the hearing and waived oral
argument. Respondents moved to dismiss, at the close of the
case, on the ground that there is no evidence that Philip
David Sachs and Michael Sachs were partners. Peko and
Sav-Co moved to dismiss on the ground that the evidence
is insufficient to support any allegation against those two
Respondents. I reserved ruling on the motions, and they are
disposed of in accordance with my decision herebelow. All
the parties had an opportunity to file briefs. Briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and from Peko and
Sav-Co. On the entire record in this matter, and in consider-
ation of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Sav-Co owns a building in Collinsville, Illinois, which
is operated as a retail discount department store. All of the
departments within the store, and the automotive depart-
ment, which is in a nearby building, are operated by enter-
prises other than Sav-Co under lease or license agreements.
Sav-Co coordinates the advertising of the various enterpris-
es, furnishes building maintenance and utility services, and
provides check cashing protection service and guard and
custodial service for the enterprise. The enterprise, which is
called Sav-Mart, gives the appearance of being a single
department store.
In one comer of the large parking area surrounding
Sav-Mart adjacent to the automotive supply store there is
a retail gasoline station, which was erected by Sav-Co joint-
ly with Mid West Petroleum Company, which owns a lease-
hold from Sav-Co on the gasoline station section of the
property. Mid West Petroleum Company assigned its lease-
hold on this property as well as similar leaseholds in other
Sav-Mart Stores operated by other corporations I to Peko.
This assignment took place on January 2, 1968. On the same
day, Peko signed an agreement with Ben Sachs, pursuant to
which Ben Sachs contracted to supervise the four gas service
stations subleased to Peko by Mid West Petroleum, advise
Peko of the condition of equipment, machinery, and opera-
tion of the service stations and of trends of developments
in the business, and make necessary recommendations to
the operators of the stations concerning their handling of
credit cards and cash collections systems, together with the
payment of amounts due from the operators to the owner.
For this service Sachs, according to the agreement, was to
be paid $100 a week. Sometime thereafter Ben Sachs in-
stalled his son, Philip David Sachs, as a consignee of Peko
at the Collinsville service station. The agreement provides
that Philip Sachs shall sell only products supplied by Peko,
shall maintain the service station, and render a daily ac-
count to Peko. It provides that Peko shall set the price of
the products sold and that Philip Sachs shall be reimbursed
at the rate of 3 cents a gallon for all gasoline sold. It also
provides that Philip Sachs shall be liable for services ren-
dered by Peko in the amount of 4 cents per gallon. This
would seem to wipe out any possible income to Philip from
the operation of the service station. Peko guarantees that
1 The record does not reveal whether the other corporations are in any way
integrated with Sav-Co
Sachs shall realize a profit before payment of wage and
labor costs of $8,000 a year less any losses from credit cards,
bad checks, or shortages in cash or inventory. The contract
provides that Sachs remit to Peko daily all money received,
and that Peko shall pay all expenses of the station with the
exception of wages and salaries.
At the time Peko entered into the consignment contract
with David Sachs, David Sachs was in the Armed Forces.
He continued in the Armed Forces until after December 31,
1971, at which time he relinquished the contract. The opera-
tion of the service station was largely in the hands of his
brother Harvey Sachs, who, although he was a full-time
student during the entire period involved, supervised the
running of the service station. Michael Sachs, a younger
brother, who was apparently 16 years of age when the con-
tract was entered into, worked in the service station at an
hourly rate at various times between 1968 and the termina-
tion of Sachs' connection with the station.
Harvey Sachs was furnished with a rubber stamp bear-
ing the signature of Philip Sachs. With this stamp he signed
a sublease dated February 3, 1969, from Peko to Philip
Sachs. He also signed the paychecks given to employees and
other documents relating to Respondents' business with the
use of the rubber stamp.
The parties stipulated that Sav-Co was owned by Ben-
jamin and Sam Pessin, Abe Osheroff, Sidney Katz, and
LeRoy Kopolow, together with an investment corporation.
Each of the owners owned a one-sixth interest in the enter-
prise. Kopolow, Katz, and Sam Pessin constitute the board
of directors and officers of Sav-Co.
The parties also stipulated that Peko is owned by Ben-
jamin and Sam Pessin, Abe Osheroff, and Sidney Katz, who
also comprise the board of directors and the officers thereof,
and each owns 25 percent of Peko.
The parties stipulated that Sav-Co provides building
space to commercial licensees and lessees at the Sav-Mart
premises in Collinsville, and annually derives gross revenue
therefrom in excess of $100,000, of which more than $50,000
was derived from enterprises, each of which have annual
gross sales at retail in excess of $500,000, and which receive
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 shipped to
them directly to Illinois from points outside the State of
Illinois. The Respondents also admit that Peko annually
imports gasoline and oil products and other goods and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 from States other than the
State of Illinois to its business operations within the State
of Illinois.
There is no allegation that Respondent is separately
engaged in commerce. I find that both Sav-Mart and Peko
are engaged iii commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and it would effectuate the purposes of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction over their operations. I find
further that Peko and Sav-Co are so integrated in owner-
ship, management, and operation that they compnse a sin-
gle identity for the purposes of the Act. The real issue, of
course, is whether Respondent, Phil's Sav-Mart service sta-
tion, is so integrated into Peko's or Sav-Mart's operation, or
into the Peko-Sav-Mart integrated operation, that the Board
is warranted to assume jurisdiction over Respondent, even
though its separate business meets none of the Board's
yardsticks for the assumption of jurisdiction.
PHILS SAV-MART SERVICE
In the first place, the record here reveals none of the
control over the employee status or labor relations of the
licensee that is normally found in retail discount depart-
ment store cases. The contracts from Sav-Co to Mid West,
from Mid West to Peko, and from Peko to Respondent
contain no provisions limiting Respondent in regard to its
employees or regulating Respondent in its relations with
employees, or the employees' relations with the business.
The contract between Philip Sachs and Peko makes him an
independent contractor solely for the purpose of managing
the station, providing to Peko all control over the products
sold and the prices at which they are sold, the maintenance
of the station and equipment, the supply of equipment and
tools, and the payments for rentals, utility bills, taxes, and
all operational costs other than salaries and wages expenses.
The only contribution required of Philip Sachs, other than
services, is petty cash in the amount of $52. The record
reveals no authority on the part of Philip Sachs with regard
to any operation of Sav-Co or Peko, other than the Collins-
ville filling station, and it reveals no authority on the part
of Peko or Sav-Co over Philip Sachs' management or serv-
ices at the filling station.
The only link between Peko and Respondent, other
than the contract, is Ben Sachs , admittedly the agent of
Peko, who appears to have had more than a little to do with
the management of Phil's Service Station. The record re-
veals that Ben Sachs is employed as an independent con-
tractor to manage the four Illinois service stations operated
by Peko at Sav-Mart stores. Peko's contract with Ben Sachs
contains no provisions for his direct management of the
service stations, other than that he shall be available for
consultation with the operators of the station concerning
their handling of the credit cards and monies , which under
their individual contracts with Peko are turned over to Peko.
The record reveals that, in fact, they are turned over to Ben
Sachs. The record reveals that Ben Sachs spent a consider-
able amount of time at Respondent's enterprise, that he
directed the employees in some of their work, and, indeed,
that he interrogated them concerning their union activities.
Harvey Sachs, who professedly managed the gas station in
the absence of his brother, testified that this was done be-
cause of Ben Sachs' fatherly interest in the success of his
son's enterprise. Ben Sachs was not called to testify. There
is no showing that Ben Sachs had any relationship with
either Sav-Co or Peko, other than his contract for supervi-
sion of the service stations. The General Counsel has not
persuaded me that Ben Sachs' participation in the affairs of
the service station was any more than that of a fond father
attempting to preserve a source of livelihood for his son
during his son's period of military service.
When the union organization took place, and the Un-
ion threatened to strike the station to get a contract signed,
the Union's business agent, failing to get it signed by Har-
vey Sachs, communicated at various times with Sidney
839
Katz, an old friend of his, whom he knew to be one of the
principals of Sav-Co. After and apparnetly pursuant to his
communication with Katz, business agent Baum succeeded
in setting up a meeting with Ben, Harvey, and Michael
Sachs, at which after some delay the contract was finally
signed . Prior to that meeting Mr. Baum had had frequent
telephone conversations with Sidney Katz, and one with
Abe Osheroff, who called him at Sidney Katz' suggestion,
attempting to avert the strike. Before the Sachses finally
signed the contract, however, the Union called a strike
which lasted a number of days.
The General Counsel contends that, notwithstanding
the lack of contractual obligation or provision for such in-
tercession, Sav-Co-Peko demonstrated the reality of inte-
gration by its interposition of a direction to Respondent to
sign the contract. However, the General Counsel's evidence
does not support this argument. Baum admittedly had no
knowledge of the contractual relationship between Peko,
Sav-Co, and Respondent. He testified that he had been
trying to find out what it was for a long period of time. His
appeal to his friend, Sidney Katz, was based on no knowl-
edge that Katz had a right to interpose himself or his compa-
ny into the labor dispute. There is no showing that Peko or
Sav-Co did any more than recommend to Respondent that
it sign the contract, or that it had any right to do any more
than so recommend. Peko certainly had a right to send its
supervising agent , Ben Sachs , into conference with the un-
ion agent Baum , since a picket line at the station would
harm not only Peko's business through the station, but Sav-
Co's business in the Sav-Mart. Ben Sachs came to the bar-
gaining table wearing two hats, the representative of Peko,
interested in seeing the dispute settled and its business con-
tinued without the incumbrance of a picket line, and the
representative of his son, interested in preserving the fran-
chise, which his father had granted him on behalf of Peko.
I find that the control of wages and fringe benefits and
the handling of grievances and other employee matters are
lodged with Respondent, rather than with Peko or Sav-Co.
There is no showing of financial interest or managerial in-
terest as between Peko Sav-Co and Respondent. According-
ly, I find that the General Counsel has not proven that
Respondent is integrated with Peko-Sav-Co. The record
does not reveal that Respondent sells products in excess of
$500,000 annually, or is otherwise engaged in interstate
commerce.2 Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety .3
2 Triumph Sales, Inc, 154 NLRB 916, 918.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes