Meddin Enterprises, Inc.

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.