Opinion ID: 303395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Corporate Policy and Functional Relationships

Text: 11 Much of the hearing and a large part of the opinion of the Trial Examiner were devoted to an examination of policies, practices, and working conditions within the various Sid Harvey corporations. In view of the basic questions raised by a suit of this nature, a good deal of what the Trial Examiner concerned himself with was of marginal relevance and dubious materiality. 12 The Trial Examiner found that some of Inc.'s marketing activities are conducted in the building where Supply has its offices, although the areas in which the two corporations are located are separated by partitions and lockable doors (which are open during working hours), and the employees of each company have separate entrances and separate restrooms. The two pay rent directly to the landlord, a partnership in which Stephen Harvey has an interest, as he does in all the partnerships from which companies in the Sid Harvey group rent land and facilities. The two corporations located in the one building utilize a common switchboard, and Inc. pays Supply a service fee for some minor services such as janitorial work. All the companies in the Sid Harvey group have the same hospital, medical, group life, and automobile liability policies. Occasionally an employee of one of the companies will take a job with another Sid Harvey company. One accounting firm served all the Sid Harvey corporations and it prepared an office manual of standard operating procedures. However the companies were not required to use the manual. 13 The Trial Examiner compared the working conditions at Supply and Inc. and found: 14 Although [the Union] showed a number of working conditions in common among the employees of Inc. and Supply, [including the same system of rating jobs, the same work hours and two 10-minute rest periods, the same number of holidays, Christmas bonuses based upon length of service, the same profit-sharing program] there were also many working conditions that were different between the two groups . . . . The two groups had different rules for qualification of overtime, different sick pay and disability benefits, and other benefits. Supply has no pension plan; Inc. does. Inc. has a cash attendance award. Supply does not. Inc. has a savings plan for employees; Supply does not. There are differences in the rules on 'tardiness,' smoking, making telephone calls, working on Election Day, to mention a few. 15 More important for the question presented by this case, the Trial Examiner and the Board found that once a year the presidents and some other top executives of the Sid Harvey group of companies meet to discuss problems common to the companies. The Board found that at the May, 1970 meeting the strike at Supply was discussed, but there was no proof that overall policies resulted from these meetings, particularly no overall labor policy or personnel policy. 16 In addition the Board found that Stephen Harvey had personally fired two presidents of two Sid Harvey companies, and that he actively oversaw and controlled the financial aspects of the Sid Harvey companies. Inc. publishes a monthly news letter, Renews, which the Trial Examiner termed a house organ. This house organ contains news about people in the various Sid Harvey companies as well as corporate news. Its content reveals that the personnel of the companies considered themselves to be engaged in interlocking business activities in an interrelated corporate structure.