Related entities constitute a single employer for jurisdictional purposes under the National Labor Relations Act when they comprise an integrated enterprise.
A union challenged a state court's jurisdiction over a suit to restrain picketing, arguing the employer was part of an integrated enterprise with gross receipts exceeding the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdictional minimum. The court must determine if the employer is a single entity under Board standards. To determine if multiple business entities constitute a single employer, the Board considers the interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership. Because the record showed these factors were present in the enterprise, the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield to the Board's jurisdiction.
At page 256 Determining single employer status for jurisdiction62 citing cases“interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership.”
- Innes, No. 1:22-cv-00641 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2026).(Solid Waste Servs., Inc.)
- Cardinale v. S. Homes of Polk Cnty., Inc., 310 F. App'x 311 (11th Cir. 2009).unpublished (The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership.)
- Florence, No. 1:25-cv-07082 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2026).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965); Shukla v. Viacom Inc., 2019 WL 1932568 , at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
- Killion v. Patel, No. 1:24-cv-00337 (S.D. Ind. July 10, 2025). The single-employer doctrine, also referred to as the "integrated enterprise" doctrine, is a "judicially created" doctrine that "originated in the area of labor relations." Rogers v. Sugar Tree Prods., Inc., 7 F.3d 577, 582 (7th Cir. 1993)…
- Steinberg v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-06470 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025).Broadcast Technicians Local Union v. Broadcast Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965)).
- Gesualdi v. Advanced Ready Mix Corp., 768 F. Supp. 3d 451 (E.D.N.Y. 2025).publishedUnion 1264 v. Broadcast Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam)).
- United States v. Pathway of Baldwin Cnty., LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00355 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 10, 2024).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
- Natale v. Allied Aviation Servs., Inc, No. 1:23-cv-07260 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2024).Union 1264 v. Broadcast Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam).
- Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am., No. 6:23-cv-00553 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2024).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
- Womochil v. Averette Co. Inc, The, No. 2:22-cv-00321 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 21, 2024).Union 1264 v. Broadcast Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965)3.
Show 51 more citing cases
- Cement & Concrete Workers Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Manny P. Concrete Co., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-02145, 2023 WL 3948751 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2023).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965); see also Lihli, 80 F.3d at 747. “[N]ot every factor need be present, and no particular factor is controlling.” Lihli, 80 F.3d at 747.
- Kilkenny, as Trs. of the Constr. Council Local 175 Annuity Fund v. Manco Enter., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-04765 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
- Bautista v. PR Gramercy Square Condo., 642 F. Supp. 3d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).publishedRadio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
- New York Party Shuttle v. NLRB, 18 F.4th 753 (5th Cir. 2021).publishedServ. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam)).
- Armogida v. Cent. Indiana Jobs With Just., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01986 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 28, 2021).(noting that cases interpreting the LMRA apply the "single employer" theory of liability)
- Laborers' Pension Fund v. Rai Concrete, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-08748 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2021).Under ERISA’s single-employer doctrine, “when two entities are sufficiently integrated, they will be treated as a single entity for certain purposes.” Moriarty v. Svec, 164 F.3d 323, 332 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Radio and Televisions Broadc…
- Lieffring v. Prairieland Solid Waste Facility, No. 0:19-cv-02812 (D. Minn. June 30, 2021).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965); 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 (c)(2).
- Trs. of the Local 7 Tile Indus. Welfare Fund v. Castle Stone & Tile, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-03187 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2020).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
- Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430 (2020).publishedRadio & Television Technicians v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U. S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam).
- Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union - New York Employees Pension Fund v. Canal Escorts, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-04575 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020).Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam).
- Bricklayers Ins. & Welfare Fund v. Mastercraft Masonry I, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-06599 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2020).Of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).2 Here, defendants’ 56.1 Counter Statement responses prove that Northeast and Mastercraft are a “single employer.” The two companies share employees, including by “rotating Mastercraft’s bricklayer…
- In re Election Petitions, 2016 VT 7, 136 A.3d 213.publishedServ. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965)).
- Miles v. Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, No. 2012-0378, 2013 WL 5817657 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2013).publishedServ. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
- Cent. Illinois Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Olsen, 467 F. App'x 513 (7th Cir. 2012).unpublished Serv., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965)).
- Oaktree Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 452 F. App'x 433 (5th Cir. 2011).unpublishedServ. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965); DMR Corp., 699 F.2d at 790-91 ; Carnival Carting, Inc., 355 N.L.R.B.
- Sears v. Magnolia Plumbing, Inc., No. 2010-2313 (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2011).publishedServ. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
- Argyle Realty Assocs. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 65 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).publishedThe United States Supreme Court first adopted the single employer doctrine in the context of labor disputes brought before the NLRB in Radio & Television Technicians v Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc. ( 380 US 255, 256 [1965]).
- Appeal of Pinkerton Academy, 920 A.2d 1168 (N.H. 2007).published“Although a state court may assume jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the National Labor Relations Board has, but declines to assert, jurisdiction,... there must be a proper determination of whether the case is…”
- Ernesto Luna v. Gunter Honey, Inc., No. 09-05-00207-CV, 2005 WL 3490126 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 22, 2005).publishedServ ., 380 U.S. at 256 (citations omitted).
- Strauss v. New York State Dep't of Educ., 26 A.D.3d 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedThe four-part test was originally sanctioned for use by the National Labor Relations Board as a means of ascertaining whether two entities constituted a single employer in the context of labor disputes (see Radio & Television Technicians v…
- Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2001).published Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Serv. of Mobile, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam).
- O'Dovero, Peter v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999).publishedThe Board noted in view of the evidence of the single employer status of O'Dovero and Associated, see, e.g., Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Services of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per cur…
- Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, FL, No. 96-4577 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 1997).published Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 , 85 S.Ct. 876, 877 (1965).5 4 Lyes argued before the district court and the panel that the “agency” test might also be relevant in this case.
- Alta Bates Corp. Alta Bates Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & Off. & Prof'l Employees Int'l Union, Local 29, Afl-Cio, Respondent-Intervenor. & Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alta Bates Corp. Alta Bates Med. Ctr., & Off. & Prof'l Employees Int'l Union, Local 29, Afl-Cio, Respondent-Intervenor. & Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pathology Inst., Inc. & Off. & Prof'l Employees Int'l Union, Local 29, Afl-Cio, Respondent-Intervenor, 116 F.3d 482 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublishedInc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965)). 5 To find a "single employer," all four factors need not be present.
- Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Atl. Cnty. Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, 594 A.2d 1348 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991).publishedLocal 1264 v. Broadcast Serv., 380 U.S. 255, 256 , 85 S.Ct. 876, 877 , 13 L.Ed.2d 789, 790 (1965), that is not always true.
- 55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 861, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,659 Juan Muller Rivas v. Federacion De Asociaciones Pecuarias De Puerto Rico, D/B/A Federacion Pecuarias De Mayaguez, 929 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1991).publishedThe controlling criteria ... are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership." Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians, 380 U.S. at 256 , 85 S.Ct. at 877 (citations omitted).
- Rivas v. Federacion de Asociaciones Pecuarias de Puerto Rico, 929 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1991).publishedThe controlling criteria ... are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership.” Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians, 380 U.S. at 256 , 85 S.Ct. at 877 (citations omitted).
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Carson Cable Tv Inglewood Cable Tv Tci of Pomona Cable Tv & Cable Mgmt. Co., 795 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1986).publishedSouth Prairie Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers Local 627, 425 U.S. 800 , 802 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. 1842 , 1843 n. 3, 48 L.Ed.2d 382 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Radio Union v. Broadcast Service, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256, 85 S.Ct. 876, 877 ,…
- Junta de Relaciones del Trabajo de Puerto Rico v. Asoc. Condóminos Playa Azul I, 117 P.R. Dec. 20 (1986).publishedRadio Union v. Broadcast Serv., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965); Penntech Papers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 706 F.2d 18 (1er Cir. 1983); Fugazy Continental Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 725 F.2d 1416 (Cir. D.C. 1984); Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 652 F.…
- Local 627, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., South Prairie Constr. Co., Intervenor, 595 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir. 1979).published“are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership”
- Demopoulos v. F&B Fuel Oil Co. Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01133 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2023).See Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam).
- Demopoulos v. F&B Fuel Oil Co. Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01133 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2022).See Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam).
- Rule v. S. Indus. Mech. Maint. Co L L C, No. 5:16-cv-01408, 2019 WL 2881545 (W.D. La. July 3, 2019). See Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3d 773, 777 (5th Cir.1997) (citing Radio Union v. Broadcast Serv., 380 U.S. 255, 257 , 85 S.Ct. 876, 877 (1965).
- Royal Typewriter Co., a Div. of Litton Bus. Sys., Inc., a Subsidiary of Litton Indus., Inc., & Litton Bus. Sys., Inc., a Subsidiary of Litton Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Allied Indus. Workers of Am., Local 469, Affiliated With Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers of Am., Afl-Cio, Intervenor. Allied Indus. Workers of Am., Local 469, Affiliated With Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Litton Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Allied Indus. Workers of Am., Local 469, Affiliated With Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers of Am., Afl-Cio, Intervenor, 533 F.2d 1030 (8th Cir. 1976).published
- Naperville Ready Mix, Inc., Petitioners/cross-Respondents v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent/cross-Petitioner, & Teamsters Local 673, Intervening Respondent/cross-Petitioner, 242 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2001).published
- Royal Typewriter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 533 F.2d 1030 (8th Cir. 1976).published
- Local No. 6, Bricklayers, Masons & Plasterers Int'l Union of Am. v. Boyd G. Heminger, Inc., & Frank Fulton, Inc., 483 F.2d 129 (6th Cir. 1973).published
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C. K. Smith & Co., Inc., & Buckley Heating Co., Inc., (Gasoline Div.), 569 F.2d 162 (1st Cir. 1977).published
- Sheeran v. Am. Com. Lines, Inc., 683 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1982).published
- Lihli Fashions Corp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 80 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 1996).published
- Bonilla v. Liquilux Gas Corp., 812 F. Supp. 286 (D.P.R. 1993).published
- Fike v. Gold Kist, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 722 (N.D. Ala. 1981).published
- Bd. of Educ. v. PG Co. Educators'ass'n, 522 A.2d 931 (Md. 1987).published
- Claudio v. United States, 907 F. Supp. 581 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).published
- Russo v. Lightning Fulfillment, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. Conn. 2002).published
- Santiago v. Lloyd, 33 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.P.R. 1998).published
- Lihli Fashions Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 80 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 1996).published
- Bd. of Educ. v. Prince George's Cnty. Educators' Ass'n, 522 A.2d 931 (Md. 1987).published
- Newspaper Prod. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 503 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1974).published
- Russell v. Elec. Workers Local 569, 409 P.2d 926 (Cal. 1966).published
- Stryjewski v. Local Union No. 830, 233 A.2d 264 (Pa. 1967).published
At page 257 142 N. L. R. B. 615. The record made below is more than adequate to show that all of these factors are present in regard to the Holt enterprise * and that this…1 citing case
- Telano v. Evans Oil Co L L C, No. 3:18-cv-01460 (W.D. La. Dec. 26, 2019).In considering whether an entity related to an employer may be liable under Title VII as an integrated or single employer, the Fifth Circuit follows the four-factor test adopted by the United States Supreme Court in the context of a labor…
Other citing cases
- Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 323 v. Coral Elec. Corp., 576 F. Supp. 1128 (S.D. Fla. 1984).published
- Lippert Tile Co. v. Int'l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Dist. Council of Wisconsin Local 5, 868 F. Supp. 2d 823 (E.D. Wis. 2012).published
- Acceptance Indem. Ins. v. Maltez, 617 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D. Tex. 2007).published
- Baetzel v. Home Instead Senior Care, 370 F. Supp. 2d 631 (N.D. Ohio 2005).published
v.
BROADCAST SERVICE OF MOBILE, INC.
The union, Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians, challenged the Alabama Circuit Court's jurisdiction over a suit by Broadcast Service of Mobile, the corporate name of Radio Station WSIM, to restrain peaceful picketing by the union and its solicitation of advertisers aimed at persuading them to cease doing business with the station. It contended that although the annual gross receipts of WSIM are below the National Labor[*256] Relations Board’s jurisdictional minimum of $100,000 per year for radio stations, WSIM is an integral part of a group of radio stations owned and operated by Charles W. Holt and the Holt Broadcasting Service and that the annual receipts of the common enterprise are in excess of $100,000, which is determinative under the Board’s standards. Stating that every court has judicial power to determine its jurisdiction and that the union failed to allege "that the appellant’s [WSIM’s] gross business exceeded $100,000 per annum,” the Alabama Supreme Court held that the state courts had jurisdiction over WSIM’s complaint. We granted certiorari. 379 U. S. 812. The judgment below must be reversed.
Although a state court may assume jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the National Labor Relations Board has, but declines to assert, jurisdiction, 29 U. S. C. §§ 164 (c)(1) and (2) (1958 ed., Supp. V), there must be a proper determination of whether the case is actually one of those which the Board will decline to hear. Hattiesburg Building Trades Council v. Broome, 377 U. S. 126. The Board will assert jurisdiction over an employer operating a radio station if his gross receipts equal or exceed $100,000 per year, Raritan Valley Broadcasting Co., 122 N. L. R. B. 90, and in determining the relevant employer, the Board considers several nominally separate business entities to be a single employer where they comprise an integrated enterprise, N. L. R. B. twenty-first Ann. Rep. 14-15 (1956). The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership. Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 N. L. R. B. 1220, aff’d 332 F. 2d 902 (C. A. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U. S. 961; Family Laundry, Inc., 121 N. L. R. B. 1619; Canton, Carp’s, Inc., 125 N. L. R. B. 483; V. I. P. Radio, Inc., 128 N. L. R. B. 113; Perfect T. V., Inc., 134 N. L. R. B. 575; Overton Markets, Inc., [*257] 142 N. L. R. B. 615. The record made below is more than adequate to show that all of these factors are present in regard to the Holt enterprise * and that this is not a case which the Board has announced it would decline to hear. Since the conduct set out in the complaint is regulated by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq. (1958 ed.), “due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield.” San Diego Building Trades v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 244; Construction & General Laborers’ Union v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542.
Reversed.
The United States, as amicus curiae, confirms the view that the Board’s standards for determining a single employer enterprise were fully satisfied by the structure and operation of the Holt stations.