C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO REGULATIONS › PART 779—THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS APPLIED TO RETAILERS OF GOODS OR SERVICES › Subpart C—Employment to Which the Act May Apply; Enterprise Coverage

29 C.F.R. § 779.218

Methods to accomplish “unified operation.”

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

There are many instances where several establishments, persons, corporations, or other business organizations, join together to perform some or all of their activities as a unified business or business system. They may accomplish such unification through agreements, franchises, grants, leases, or other arrangements which have the effect of aligning or integrating the activities of one company with the activities of others so that they constitute a single business or unified business system. Whether in any particular case the activities are performed through “unified operation” and have the effect of creating a single enterprise, will depend upon all the facts, including the manner in which the activities are performed, the agreements and arrangements which govern their performance, and the other relationships between the parties, considered in the light of the statutory provision and the legislative intent. (cf Wirtz v. Wornom's Pharmacy (E.D. Va.), 18 WH Cases 289, 365; 57 Labor Cases 32,006, 32,030.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: John T. Dunlop, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Mitchell N. Ashy, 555 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John T. Dunlop, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Mitchell N. Ashy, 555 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1977). “See also 29 C.F.R. §§ 779.218 -.220. With respect to this definition, the Secretary refers this court to the agreement of Inn Restaurants, Inc.”
Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F. Supp. 1366 (N.D. Ga. 1969). “29 C.F.R. 779.218. A unified operation may exist where, as in the instant ease, the activities are separately owned or controlled.”
Brock v. Cruz, 357 F. Supp. 3d 581 (S.D. Tex. 2019). “) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.218 ). The "common control" test "is not ownership, but rather whether there is a common control center with the ultimate power to make binding policy decisions for all units of the enterprise.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.