The 1961 amendments for the first time since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 provided that all employees in a particular business unit are covered by the Act. Prior to the 1961 amendments each employee's coverage depended on whether that employee's activities were in commerce or constituted the production of goods for commerce. All employees employed in an “enterprise” described in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the Act as it was amended in 1961 and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the Act as amended in 1966 are also covered. Thus, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the term “enterprise” as used in the Act.

The term “enterprise” is defined in section 3(r) of the Act and, wherever used in the Act, is governed by this definition. (§ 779.21(a) provides that portion of the definition of “enterprise” which is pertinent with respect to retail and service enterprises.) The term is a key in determining the applicability of the Act to these businesses. The “enterprise” is the unit for determining whether the conditions of section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act, including, where applicable, the requisite dollar volume are met. The “enterprise” is also the unit for determining which employees not individually covered by the Act are entitled to the minimum wage, overtime, and equal pay benefits, and to the child labor protection, under sections 6, 7, and 12 of the Act. In general, if the “enterprise” comes within any of the categories described in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act or section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act, all employees employed in the “enterprise” are covered by the Act and, regardless of their duties, are entitled to the Act's benefits unless a specific exemption applies.

Under the definition, the “enterprise” consists of “the related activities performed * * * for a common business purpose.” All of the activities comprising the enterprise must be “related.” Activities serving a single business purpose may be related, although different, but other activities which are not related are not included in the enterprise. The definition makes clear that the enterprise includes all such related activities which are performed through “unified operation” or “common control.” This is true even if they are performed by more than one person, or in more than one establishment, or by more than one corporate or other organizational unit. Specifically included, as a part of the enterprise, are departments of an establishment operated through leasing arrangements. On the other hand, the definition excludes from the “enterprise” activities only performed “for” the enterprise rather than as a part of it by an independent contractor even if they are related to the activities of the enterprise. Also, it makes clear that a truly independent retail or service establishment does not become a part of a larger enterprise merely because it enters into certain types of franchise or collective purchasing arrangements or because it has a common landlord with other such retail establishments.

The coverage, exemption and other provisions of the Act depend, in part, on the scope of the terms employer, establishment, or enterprise. As explained more fully in part 776 of this chapter, these terms are not synonymous. The term employer has been defined in the Act since its inception and has a well established meaning. As defined in section 3(d), it includes, with certain stated exceptions, any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. (See § 779.19.) The term establishment means a distinct physical place of business rather than an entire business or enterprise. (See § 779.23.) The term enterprise was not used in the Act prior to the 1961 amendments, but the careful definition and the legislative history of the 1961 and 1966 amendments provide guidance as to its meaning and application. As defined in the Act, the term enterprise is roughly descriptive of a business rather than of an establishment or of an employer although on occasion the three may coincide. The enterprise may consist of a single establishment (see § 779.204(a)) which may be operated by one or more employers; or it may be composed of a number of establishments which may be operated by one or more employers (see § 779.204(b)). The enterprise is not necessarily coextensive with the entire business activities of an employer; a single employer may operate more than one enterprise (see § 779.204(c)). The Act treats as separate enterprises different businesses which are unrelated to each other even if they are operated by the same employer.

(a) The single establishment business. In the simplest type of organization—the entire business ordinarily is one enterprise. The entire business activity of the single owner-employer may be performed in one establishment, as in the typical independently owned and controlled retail store. In that case the establishment and the enterprise are one and the same. All of the activities of the store are “related” and are performed for a single business purpose and there is both unified operation and common control. The entire business is the unit for applying the statutory tests. If the coverage tests are met, all of the employees employed by the establishment are employed in the enterprise and will be entitled to the benefits of the Act unless otherwise exempt.

(b) The multiunit business. In many cases, as in the typical chain of retail stores, one company conducts its single business in a number of establishments. All of the activities ordinarily are related and performed for one business purpose, the single company which owns the chain also controls the entire business, and the entire business is a single enterprise. The dollar volume of the entire business from all of its establishments is added together to determine whether the requisite dollar volume tests are met. If the coverage tests are met, all of the employees employed in the business will be entitled to the benefits of the Act unless otherwise exempt.

(c) Complex business organizations. In complex retail and service organizations, questions may arise as to whether certain activities are a part of a particular enterprise. In some cases one employer may operate several separate enterprises; in others, several employers may conduct their business activities in such a manner that they are part of a single enterprise. The answer, in each case, as to whether or not the “enterprise” includes certain activities will depend upon whether the particular activities are “related” to the business purpose of such enterprise and whether they are performed with its other activities through “unified operation” or “common control,” or whether, on the other hand, they are performed for a separate and distinct business purpose. As the Senate Report states,

The enterprise must consist of certain “related activities” performed for a common business purpose; activities which are not “related” are not a part of the enterprise even if performed by the same employer. Moreover, even if activities are “related” they may be excluded from the enterprise if they are performed only “for” the enterprise and not as a part of it by an independent contractor. This is discussed separately in § 779.206.

(a) The Senate Report on the 1961 amendments states as follows, with respect to the meaning of related activities:

(b) Generally, the answer to the question whether particular activities are “related” or not, will depend in each case upon whether the activities serve a business purpose common to all the activities of the enterprise, or whether they serve a separate and unrelated business purpose. For example, where a company operates retail or service establishments, and also engages in a separate and unrelated construction business, the construction activities will not be “related” and will constitute a separate enterprise if they are conducted independently and apart from the retail operations. Where, however, the retail and construction activities are conducted for a common business purpose, they may be “related,” and if they are performed through unified operation or common control, they will be a part of a single enterprise. Thus, a retail store enterprise may engage in construction activities as an additional outlet for building materials which it sells, or otherwise to serve its retail operations. It may act as its own contractor in constructing or reconstructing its own stores and related facilities. In such a case, the construction activities will be “related” activities. Other examples may also be cited. The answer in each case will necessarily depend upon all the facts.

In the case of an enterprise which has one or more retail or service establishments, all of the activities which are performed for the furtherance of the common business purpose of operating the retail or service establishments are “related activities.” It is not material that the enterprise sells different goods or provides different services, or that it operates separate retail or service establishments. As stated in the definition, the enterprise includes all related activities whether performed “in one or more establishments.” Since the activities performed by one retail or service establishment are the “same or similar” to the activities performed by another, they are, as such, “related activities.” (See Senate Report No. 145, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. p. 41.) For example, in operations of a single retailing business a drug store may sell a large variety of different products, and a grocery store may sell clothing and furniture and other goods. Clearly all of these activities are “related.” Similarly it is clear that all activities of a department store are “related activities,” even if the store sells a great variety of different types of goods and services and even if, as in some cases, the departmentalized business is conducted in more than one location, as where the department selling garden supplies or electrical appliances is located on separate premises. Whether on the same premises or at separate locations, the activities involved in retail selling of goods or services, of any type, are related activities and they will be considered one enterprise where they are performed, through unified operation or common control, for a common business purpose.

As stated in Senate Report No. 145, 87th Congress, 1st Session, cited in § 779.206, auxiliary and service activities, such as central office and warehousing activities and bookkeeping, auditing, purchasing, advertising and other similar services, also are “related activities.” When such activities are performed through unified operation or common control, for a common business purpose, they will be included in the enterprise. The following are some additional examples of auxiliary activities which are “related activities” and which may be included in the enterprise:

(a) Credit rating and collection services;

(b) Promotional activities including advertising, sign painting, display services, stamp redemptions, and prize contests;

(c) Maintenance and repair services of plant machinery and equipment including painting, decorating, and similar services;

(d) Store or plant engineering, site location and related survey activities;

(e) Detective, guard, watchmen, and other protective services;

(f) Delivery services;

(g) The operation of employee or customer parking lots;

(h) The recruitment, hiring and training activities, and other managerial services;

(i) Recreational and health facilities for customers or employees including eating and drinking facilities (note that employees primarily engaged in certain food service activities in retail establishments may be exempt from the overtime provisions under section 13(b)(18) of the Act if the specific conditions are met; see § 779.388);

(j) The operation of employee benefit and insurance plans; and

(k) Repair and alteration services on goods for sale or sold to customers.

(a) The Senate Report also states (see § 779.206 that activities are “related” when they are “part of a vertical structure such as the manufacturing, warehousing, and retailing of a particular product or products.” Where such activities are performed through unified operation or common control for a common business purpose they will be regarded as a part of the enterprise.

(b) Whether activities are vertically “related” activities and part of a single enterprise, or whether they constitute separate businesses are separate enterprises, depends upon the facts in each case. In all of these cases of so-called “vertical operations,” the determination whether the activities are “related,” depends upon the extent to which the various business activities, such as a wholesaling and retailing or manufacturing and retailing, are interrelated and interdependent and are performed to serve a business objective common to all. The mere fact that they are under common ownership is not, by itself, sufficient to bring them within the same enterprise. Thus, where a manufacturing business is carried on separately from and wholly independently of a retail business, with neither serving the business purpose of the other, they are separate businesses even if they are under common ownership. However, where the manufacturing operations are performed in substantial part for the purpose of distributing the goods through the retail stores, or the retail outlet serves to carry out a business purpose of the manufacturing plant, retailing and manufacturing will be “related” activities and performed for a “common business purpose,” and they will be a single enterprise if they are performed through unified operations or common control.

(c) In these cases of “vertical operations” a practical judgment will be required to determine whether the activities are maintained and operated as separate and distinct businesses with different objectives or whether they, in fact, constitute a single integrated business enterprise. The answer necessarily will depend upon all the facts in each case.

(a) An enterprise may perform certain activities that appear entirely foreign to its principal business but which may be a part of the enterprise because of the manner in which they are performed. In some cases these activities may be a very minor and incidental part of its business operations. For example a retail store may accept payments of utility bills, provide a notarial service, sell stamps, bus and theater tickets, or travellers' checks, etc. These and other activities may be entirely different from the enterprise's principal business but they may be performed on the same premises and by the same employees or otherwise under such circumstances as to be a part of the enterprise.

(b) Sometimes such activities are performed as an adjunct to the principal business to create good will or to attract customers. In other cases, the businessman may engage in them primarily for the additional revenue. Some such foreign activities may be conducted in a more elaborate manner, as where the enterprise operates a bus stop or a post office substation as an adjunct to a principal business such as a hotel or a retail store. Where in such a case the activities are performed in a physically separate “establishment” (see §§ 779.303-779.308) from the other business activities of the enterprise and are functionally operated as a separate business, separately controlled, with separate employees, separate records, and a distinct business objective of its own, they may constitute a separate enterprise. Where, however, such activities are intermingled with the other activities of the enterprise and have a reasonable connection to the same business purpose they will be a part of the enterprise.

Activities which are not related even if performed by the same employer are not included as a part of the enterprise. The receipts from the unrelated activities will not be counted toward the annual dollar volume of sales or business under section 3(s) and the employees performing such unrelated activities will not be covered merely because they work for the same employer. Common ownership standing alone does not bring unrelated activities within the scope of the same enterprise. If, for example, one individual owns or controls a bank, a filing station, and a factory, the mere fact of common ownership will not make them one enterprise. However, if it appears that there is a reasonable relationship of all the activities to a single business purpose a different conclusion might be warranted. Activities which are not “related” will be treated separately for purposes of the tests contained in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act. For example, in the case where a single company operates retail grocery stores and also engages in an unrelated business of constructing homes, one “enterprise” for purposes of section 3(s)(1) of both the prior and the amended Act will consist of the retail grocery stores and any activities related to them, and home construction activities will constitute a separate enterprise. The latter will not be included in determining whether the retail business enterprise meets the conditions of section 3(s)(1), and the construction employees will not be covered merely because the retail business is covered. The construction business will be considered separately under section 3(s)(4) of the poor Act and section 3(s)(3) of the amended Act.

The related activities described in section 3(r) as included in the statutory enterprise are those performed for a “common business purpose.” (See the comprehensive discussion in 29 CFR part 776.) The term “common business purpose” as used in the definition does not have a narrow concept and is not intended to be limited to a single business establishment or a single type of business. As pointed out above, retailing, wholesaling and manufacturing may, under certain circumstances be engaged in for a “common business purpose.” (See § 779.209.) An example was also cited where retailing and construction were performed for a common business purpose. (See § 779.206.) On the other hand, it is clear that even a single individual or corporation may perform activities for different business purposes. (See § 779.211.) Thus the reports of the House of Representatives cite, as an example of this, the case of a single company which owns several retail apparel stores and is also engaged in the lumbering business. It concludes that these activities are not part of a single enterprise. (H. Rept. 75, 87th Cong.,1st Sess., p. 7 and H. Rept. 1366, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 9.)

Generally, the term “common business purpose” will encompass activities whether performed by one person or by more than one person, or corporation, or other business organization, which are directed to the same business objective or to similar objectives in which the group has an interest. The scope of the term “enterprise” encompasses a single business entity as well as a unified business system which performs related activities for a common business purpose. What is a “common business purpose” in any particular case involves a practical judgment based on the facts in the light of the statutory provisions and the legislative intent. The answer ordinarily will be readily apparent from the facts. The facts may show that the activities are related to a single business objective or that they are so operated or controlled as to form a part of a unified business system which is directed to a single business objective. In such cases, it will follow that they are performed for a common business purpose. Where, however, the facts show that the activities are not performed as a part of such enterprise but for an entirely separate and unrelated business, they will be considered performed for a different business purpose and will not be a part of that enterprise. The application of these principles is considered in more detail in part 776 of this chapter.

The activities described in section 3(r) are included in an enterprise only when they are performed for a “business” purpose. Activities of eleemosynary, religious, or educational organization may be performed for a business purpose. Thus, where such organizations engage in ordinary commercial activities, such as operating a printing and publishing plant, the business activities will be treated under the Act the same as when they are performed by the ordinary business enterprise. (See Mitchell v. Pilgrims Holiness Church Corp., 210 F. 2d 879 (CA-7); cert. den. 347 U.S. 1013.) However, the nonprofit educational, religious, and eleemosynary activities will not be included in the enterprise unless they are of the types which the last sentence of section 3(r), as amended in 1966, declares shall be deemed to be performed for a business purpose. Such activities were not regarded as performed for a business purpose under the prior Act and are not so considered under the Act as it was amended in 1966 except for those activities listed in the last sentence of amended section 3(r). (See § 779.21.)

(a) Under the definition related activities performed for a common business purpose will be a part of the enterprise when they are performed either through “unified operation” or “common control.” It should be noted that these conditions are stated in the alternative. Thus if it is established that the described activities are performed through “common control,” it is unnecessary to show that they are also performed through “unified operation,” although frequently both conditions may exist.

(b) Under the definition the terms “unified operation” and “common control” refer to the performance of the “related activities.” They do not refer to the ownership of the activities. Although ownership may be a significant factor in determining control (see § 779.222), the related activities will be a part of the enterprise even if they are not under common ownership, so long as they are performed for a common business purpose through unified operation or common control. Further, under the definition the terms “unified operation” and “common control” refer to the performance only of the particular related activities and not to other activities which may be performed by the various persons, corporations, or other business organizations, comprising the enterprise. Thus where two or more individual or business organizations perform certain of their activities through unified operation or common control, these activities will be part of a single enterprise, assuming of course they are related activities performed for a common business purpose. Finally, the definition in section 3(r) makes clear that the described activities may be performed through unified operation or common control “in one or more establishments or by one or more corporate or other organizational units.” The Senate Report on the 1966 amendments makes the following comment with respect to this:

The terms “unified operation” and “common control” do not have a fixed legal or technical meaning. As used in the definition, these and other terms must be given an interpretation consistent with the Congressional intention to be ascertained from the context in which they are used, the legislation of which they form a part, and the legislative history. In extending coverage of the Act on an “enterprise” basis, the Congress intended, by the 1961 and 1966 amendments to cover, among others, business organizations and chain store systems which may perform their related activities through complex business arrangements or business structures, whether they perform their activities for a common business purpose through unified operation or through the retention or exercise of control. For these reasons, the definition of the term “enterprise” is stated in broad general terms. This legislative intent is evidenced both by the statements in the Committee Reports and by the definition itself, particularly the broad references to the inclusion in the “enterprise” of “all such activities” whether performed “in one or more establishments” or “by one or more corporate or other organizational units.” When the Act was amended in 1966 the Congress further broadened coverage by redefining an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce in section 3(s). (See § 779.22.) Where the Congress intended to exclude certain arrangements or activities from the “enterprise” it did so by specific provision under the prior and amended Act.

Webster defines the word “unify” to mean “to cause to be one; to make into a unit; to unite.” The pertinent definition of “operation” is a method or way of operating, working or functioning. Since the term “unified operation” has reference to the method of performing the related activities, it means combining, uniting, or organizing their performance so that they are in effect a single business unit or an organized business system which is an economic unit directed to the accomplishment of a common business purpose. The term “unified operation” thus includes a business which may consist of separate segments but which is conducted or operated as a unit or as a single business for a common business purpose.

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.)

The performance of related activities through “unified operation” to serve a common business purpose may be achieved without common control and without common ownership. In particular cases ownership or control of the related activities may be factors to be considered, along with all facts and circumstances, in determining whether the activities are performed through “unified operation.” It is clear from the definition that if the described activities are performed through unified operation they will be part of the enterprise whether they are performed by one company or by more than one corporate or other organizational unit. The term “unified operation” has reference particularly to enterprises composed of a number of separate companies as is clear in the quotation from the Senate Report in § 779.215. Where the related activities are performed by a single company, or under other single ownership, they will ordinarily be performed through “common control,” and the question of whether they are also performed through unified operation will not need to be decided. (Wirtz v. Barnes Grocer Co., 398 F. 2d 718 (C.A. 8).)

Whether there is unified operation of related activities will thus be of concern primarily in those cases where the related activities are separately owned or controlled but where, through arrangement, agreement or otherwise, they are so performed as to constitute a unified business system organized for a common business purpose. For example, a group of separately incorporated, separately owned companies, may agree to conduct their activities in such manner as to be for all intents and purposes a single business system except for the fact that the ownership and control of the individual segments of the business are retained, in part or in whole, by the individual companies comprising the unified business system. The various units may operate under a single trade name; construct their establishment to appear identical; use identical equipment; sell generally the same goods or provide the same type of services, and, in some cases, at uniform standardized prices; and in other respects appear to the persons utilizing their services or purchasing their goods as being the same business. They also may arrange for group purchasing and warehousing; for advertising as a single business; and for standardization of their records, as well as their credit, employment, and other business policies and practices. In such circumstances the activities may well be performed through “unified operation” sufficient to consider all of the related activities performed by the group of units as constituting one enterprise, despite the separate ownership of the various segments and despite the fact that the individual units or segments may retain control as to some or all of their own activities. That this is in accord with the congressional intent is plain, since where the Congress intended that such arrangements shall not bring a group of certain individual retail or service establishments into a single enterprise, provision to accomplish such exception was specifically included. (See § 779.226, discussing the proviso in section 3(r) with respect to certain franchise and other specified arrangements entered into between independently owned retail or service establishments and other businesses.)

Under the definition the “enterprise” includes all related activities performed through “common control” for a common business purpose. The word “control” may be defined as the act of fact of controlling; power or authority to control; directing or restraining domination. “Control” thus includes the power or authority to control. In relation to the performance of the described activities, the “control,” referred to in the definition in section 3(r) includes the power to direct, restrict, regulate, govern, or administer the performance of the activities. “Common” control includes the sharing of control and it is not limited to sole control or complete control by one person or corporation. “Common” control therefore exists where the performance of the described activities are controlled by one person or by a number of persons, corporations, or other organizational units acting together. This is clearly supported by the definition which specifically includes in the “enterprise” all such activities whether performed by “one or more corporate or other organizational units.” The meaning of “common control” is discussed comprehensively in part 776 of this chapter.

As pointed out in § 779.215 “unified operation” and “common control” do not refer to the ownership of the described activities but only to their performance. It is clear, however, that ownership may be an important factor in determining whether the activities are performed through “unified operation or common control.” Thus common control may exist where there is common ownership. Where the right to control, one of the prerogatives of ownership, exists, there may be sufficient “control” to meet the requirements of the statute. Ownership, or sufficient ownership to exercise control, will be regarded as sufficient to meet the requirement of “common control.” Where there is such ownership, it is immaterial that some segments of the related activities may operate on a semiautonomous basis, superficially free of actual control, so long as the power to exercise control exists through such ownership. (See Wirtz v. Barnes Grocer Co., 398 F. 2d 718 (C.A. 8).) For example, a parent corporation may operate a chain of retail or service establishments which, for business reasons, may be divided into several geographic units. These units may have certain autonomy as to purchasing, marketing, labor relations, and other matters. They may be separately incorporated, and each unit may maintain its own records, including records of its profits or losses. All the units together, in such a case, will constitute a single enterprise with the parent corporation. They would constitute a single business organization under the “common control” of the parent corporation so long as they are related activities performed for a common business purpose. The common ownership in such cases provides the power to exercise the “control” referred to in the definition. It is clear from the Act and the legislative history that the Congress did not intend that such a chain organization should escape the effects of the law with respect to any segment of its business merely by separately incorporating or otherwise dividing the related activities performed for a common business purpose.

Ownership, sufficient to exercise “control,” of course, exists where total ownership is vested in a single person, family unit, partnership, corporation, or other single business organization. Ownership sufficient to exercise “control” exist also where there is more than 50 percent ownership of voting stock. (See West v. Wal-Mart, 264 F. Supp. 168 (W.D. Ark.).) But “control” may exist with much more limited ownership, and, in certain cases exists in the absence of any ownership. The mere ownership of stock in a corporation does not by itself establish the existence of the “control” referred to in the definition. The question whether the ownership in a particular case includes the right to exercise the requisite “control” will necessarily depend upon all the facts in the light of the statutory provisions.

(a) As stated in § 779.215 “common control” may exist with or without ownership. The actual control of the performance of the related activities is sufficient to establish the “control” referred to in the definition. In some cases an owner may actually relinquish his control to another, or by agreement or other arrangement, he may so restrict his right to exercise control as to abandon the control or to share the control of his business activities with other persons or corporations. In such a case, the activities may be performed under “common control.” In other cases, the power to control may be reserved through agreement or arrangement between the parties so as to vest the control of the activities of one business in the hands of another.

(b) Activities are considered to be performed under “common control” even if, because of the particular methods of operation, the power to control is only seldom used, as where the business has been in operation for a long time without change in methods of operation and practically no actual direction is necessary; also common control may exist where the control, although rarely visibly exercised, is evidenced by the fact that mere suggestions are adopted readily by the business being controlled.

(c) In the retail industry, particularly, there are many instances where, for business reasons, related activities performed by separate companies are so unified or controlled as to constitute a single enterprise. A common example, specifically named in the definition, is the leased department. This and other examples are discussed in §§ 779.225 through 779.235.

(a) As stated in section 3(r) of the enterprise includes “departments of an establishment operated through leasing arrangements.” This statutory provision is based on the fact that ordinarily the activities of such leased departments are related to the activities of the establishment in which they are located, and they are performed for a common business purpose either through “unified operation” or “common control.” A general discussion will be found in part 776 of this chapter.

(b) In the ordinary case, a retail or service establishment may control many of the operations of a leased department therein and unify its operation with its own. Thus, they may operate under a common trade name: The host establishment may determine, or have the power to determine, the leased department's space location, the type of merchandise it will sell, its pricing policy, its hours of operation and some or all of its hiring, firing and other personnel policies; advertising, adjustment and credit operations, may be unified, and insurance, taxes, and other matters may be included as a part of the total operations of the establishment. Some or all of these and other functions, which are the normal prerogatives of an independent businessman, may be controlled or unified with the store's other activities in such a way as to constitute a single enterprise under the Act.

(c) Since the definition specifically includes in the “enterprise,” for the purpose of this Act, “departments of an establishment operated through leasing arrangements,” any such department will be considered a part of the host establishment's enterprise in the absence of special facts and circumstances warranting a different conclusion.

(d) Whether, in a particular case, the relationship is such as to constitute the lessee's operation to be a separate establishment of a different enterprise rather than a “leased department” of the host establishment as described in the definition, will depend upon all the facts including the agreements and arrangements between the parties as well as the manner in which the operations are conducted. If, for example, the facts show that the lessee occupies a physically separate space with (or even without) a separate entrance, and operates under a separate name, with his own separate employees and records, and in other respects conducts his business independently of the lessor's, the lessee may be operating a separate establishment or place of business of his own and the relationship of the parties may be only that of landlord and tenant. In such a case, the lessee's operation will not be regarded as a “leased department” and will not be included in the same enterprise with the lessor.

(e) The employees of a leased department would not be covered on an enterprise basis if such leased department is located in an establishment which is not itself a covered enterprise or part of a covered enterprise. Likewise, the applicability of exemptions for certain retail or service establishments from the Act's minimum wage or overtime pay provisions, or both, to employees of a leased department would depend upon the character of the establishment in which the leased department is located. Other sections of this subpart discuss the coverage of leased retail and service departments in more detail while subpart D of this part explains how exemptions for certain retail and service establishments apply to leased department employees.

While certain franchise and other arrangements may operate to bring the one to whom the franchise is granted into another enterprise (see § 779.232), section 3(r) contains a specific exception for certain arrangements entered into by a retail or service establishment which is under independent ownership. The specific exception in section 3(r) reads as follows:

This exception, in accordance with its specific terms, will apply to exclude an establishment from enterprise coverage only if the following conditions are met:

(a) The establishment must be a “retail or service establishment” as this term is defined in section 13(a)(2) of the Act (see discussion of this term in §§ 779.312 and 779.313); and

(b) The retail or service establishment must not be an “enterprise” which is large enough to come within the scope of section 3(s) of the Act; and

(c) The retail or service establishment must be under independent ownership.

If the retail or service establishment meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of § 779.227, it may enter into the following arrangements without becoming a part of the larger enterprise, that is, without losing its status as a “separate and distinct enterprise” to which section 3(s) would not otherwise apply:

(a) Any arrangement, whether by agreement, franchise or otherwise, that it will sell, or sell only certain goods specified by a particular manufacturer, distributor, or advertiser.

(b) Any such arrangement that it will have the exclusive right to sell the goods or use the brand name of a manufacturer, distributor, or advertiser within a specified area.

(c) Any such arrangement by which it will join with other similar retail or service establishments in the same industry for the purpose of collective purchasing. Where an agreement for “collective purchasing” is involved, further requirements are imposed, namely, that all of the other establishments joining in the agreement must be retail or service establishments under independent ownership, and that all of the establishments joining in the collective purchasing arrangement must be “in the same industry.” This has reference to such arrangements by a group of grocery stores, or by some other trade group in the retail industry.

(d) Any arrangement whereby the establishment's premises are leased from a person who also leases premises to other retail or service establishments. In connection with this rental arrangement, the Senate Report cites as an example the retail establishment which rents its premises from a shopping center operator (S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 41). It is clear that this exception was not intended to apply to the usual leased department in an establishment, which is specifically included within the larger enterprise under the definition of section 3(r). (See discussion under § 779.225.)

With respect to those arrangements specifically described in the proviso contained in the definition, an independently owned retail or service establishment will not be considered to be other than a separate and distinct enterprise, if other arrangements the establishment makes do not have the effect of bringing the establishment within a larger enterprise. Whether or not other arrangements have such an effect will necessarily depend upon all the facts. The Senate Report makes the following observations with respect to this:

(a) There are many different and complex arrangements by which businesses may join to perform their activities for a common purpose. A general discussion will be found in part 776 of this chapter. The quotation in § 779.229 from the Senate Report shows that Congress recognized that some franchise, lease, or other arrangements have the effect of creating a larger enterprise and whether they do or not depends on the facts. The facts may show that the arrangements are so restrictive as to deprive the individual establishment of those prerogatives which are the essential attributes of an independent business. (Compare Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F. 2d, 693 (C.A. 6).) An establishment through such arrangements may transfer sufficient “control” so that it becomes in effect a unit in a unified chain operation. In such cases the result of the arrangement will be to create a larger enterprise composed of the various segments, including the establishment which relinquishes its control.

(b) The term “franchise” is not susceptible of precise definition. The extent to which a businessman relinquishes the control of his business or the extent to which a franchise results in the performance of the activities through unified operation or common control depends upon the terms of the contract and the other relationships between the parties. Ultimately the determination of the precise scope of such arrangements which result in creating larger enterprises rests with the courts.

(a) While it is clear that in every franchise a businessman surrenders some rights, it equally is clear that every franchise does not create a larger enterprise. In the ordinary case a franchise may involve no more than an agreement to sell the particular product of the one granting the franchise. It may also prohibit the sale of a competing product. Such arrangements, standing alone, do not deprive the individual businessman of his “control” so as to bring him into a larger enterprise with the one granting the franchise.

(b) The portion of the Senate Report quoted in the § 779.229 cites a “bona fide independent automobile dealer” as an example of such a franchise arrangement. (It is recognized that salesmen, mechanics, and partsmen primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, trailers, farm implements, or aircraft, employed by nonmanufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles to ultimate purchasers are specifically exempt from the overtime pay provisions under section 13(b)(10) of the Act. Section 779.372 discusses the exemption provided by section 13(b)(10) and its application whether or not the establishment meets the Act's definition of a retail or service establishment. The automobile dealer is used here only as an example of the type of franchise arrangement which, within the intent of the Congress, does not result in creating a larger enterprise.) The methods of operation of the independent automobile dealer are widely known. While he operates under a franchise to sell a particular make of automobile and also may be required to stock certain parts and to maintain specified service facilities, it is clear that he retains the control of the management of his business in those respects which characterize an independent businessman. He determines the prices for which he sells his merchandise. Even if prices are suggested by the manufacturer, it is well known that the dealer exercises wide discretion in this respect, free of control by the manufacturer or distributor. Also the automobile dealer retains control with respect to the management of his business, the determination of his employment practices, the operation of his various departments, and his business policies. The type of business in which he is engaged leaves him wide latitude for the exercise of his judgment and for decisions with respect to important aspects of his business upon which its success or failure depends. On the basis of these considerations, it is evident why the independent automobile dealer was cited as an example of the type of franchise which does not create a larger enterprise encompassing the dealer, the manufacturer or the distributor. Similar facts will lead to the same conclusion in other such arrangements.

(a) In other instances, franchise arrangements do result in bringing a dealer's business into a larger enterprise with the one granting the franchise. Where the franchise arrangement results in vesting control over the operations of the dealer's business in the one granting the franchise, the result is to place the dealer in a larger enterprise with the one granting the franchise. Where there are multiple units to which such franchises have been granted, the several dealers are considered to be subject to the common control of the one granting the franchise and all would be included in the same larger enterprise.

(b) It is not possible to lay down specific rules to determine whether a franchise or other agreement is such that a single enterprise results because all the facts and circumstances must be examined in the light of the definition of the term “enterprise” as discussed above in this subpart. However, the following example illustrates a franchising company and independently owned retail establishments which would constitute a single enterprise:

(1) The franchisor had developed a system of retail food store operations, built up a large volume of buying power, formulated rules and regulations for the successful operation of stores together constituting a system which for many years proved in practice to be of commercial value to the separate stores; and

(2) The franchisor desired to extend its business through the operation of associated franchise stores, by responsible persons in various localities to act as limited agents, and to be parts of the system, to the end that the advantages of and the profits from the business could be enjoyed by those so associated as well as by the franchisor; and

(3) The stores were operated under the franchise as part of the general system and connected with the home office of the franchisor from which general administrative jurisdiction was exercised over all franchised stores, wherever located; and

(4) The stores operated under the franchise agreement were always subject to the general administrative jurisdiction of the franchisor and agreed to comply with it; and

(5) The stores operated under the franchise agreed to install appliances, fixtures, signs, etc. according to plans and specifications provided by the franchisor and to purchase their merchandise through the franchisor except to the extent that the latter may authorize local purchase of certain items; and

(6) The stores operated under the franchise agreed to participate in special promotions, sales and advertising as directed by the franchisor, to attend meetings of franchise store operators and to pay a fee to the franchisor at the rate of one-half of 1 percent of total gross sales each month for the privileges to them and the advantages and profits derived from operating a local unit of the franchisor's system; and

(7) The franchisor under the franchise agreement had the right to place on a prohibited list any merchandise which it considered undesirable for sale in a franchise store, and the stores operated pursuant to the franchise agreed to immediately discontinue sale of any such blacklisted merchandise.

(c) It is clear from the facts and circumstances surrounding this franchise arrangement described in paragraph (b) of this section that the operators of the franchised establishments are denied the essential prerogatives of the ordinary independent businessman because of restrictions as to products, prices, profits and management. The last paragraph of the Senate Report quoted in § 779.229 makes clear that in such cases the franchised establishment, dealer, or concessionaire will be considered an integral part of the related activities of the enterprise which grants the franchise, right, or concession.

(a) The definition in section 3(r) specifically provides that the “enterprise” shall not include “the related activities performed for such enterprise by an independent contractor.” This exclusion will apply where the related activities are performed “for” the enterprise and if such activities are performed by “an independent contractor.” This provision is discussed generally in part 776 of this chapter.

(b) The Senate Report in referring to this exception states as follows:

(c) There are many instances in industry where one business performs activities for separate businesses without becoming a part of a larger enterprise. In addition to the examples cited in the Report they may include such services as repairs, window cleaning, transportation, warehousing, collection services, and many others. The essential test in each case will be whether such services are performed “for” the enterprise by an independent, separate enterprise, or whether the related activities are performed for a common purpose through unified operation or common control. In the latter case the activities will be considered performed “by” the enterprise, rather than “for” the enterprise, and will be a part of the enterprise. The distinction in the ordinary case will be readily apparent from the facts. In those cases where questions arise a determination must be made on the basis of all the facts in the light of the statute and the legislative history.

Section 3(s) provides that any “establishment which has as its only regular employees the owner thereof or the parent, spouse, child, or other member of the immediate family of such owner” shall not be considered to be an “enterprise” as described in section 3(r) or a part of any other enterprise. Further the sales of such establishment are not included for the purpose of determining the annual gross volume of sales of any enterprise for the purpose of section 3(s). The term “other member of the immediate family of such owner” is considered to include relationships such as brother, sister, grandchildren, grandparents, and in-laws but not distant relatives from separate households. The 1966 amendments extended the exception to include family operated establishments which only employ persons other than members of the immediate family infrequently, irregularly, and sporadically. (See general discussion in part 776 of this chapter.)

No attempt has been made in the discussion of the term “enterprise,” to consider every possible situation which may, within the meaning of section 3(r), constitute an “enterprise” under the Act. The discussion is designed to explain and illustrate the application of the term in some cases; in others, the discussion may serve as a guide in applying the criteria of the definition to the particular fact situation. A more complete discussion is contained in part 776 of this chapter.

Sections 779.201 through 779.235 discuss the various criteria for determining what business unit or units constitute an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Act. Sections 779.237 through 779.245 discuss the criteria for determining what constitutes a “covered enterprise” under the Act with respect to the conditions for coverage of those enterprises in which retail sale of goods or services are made. As explained in §§ 779.2 through 779.4, previously covered employment in retail and service enterprises will be subject to different monetary standards than newly covered employment in such enterprises until February 1, 1971. For this reason the enterprise coverage provisions of both the prior and the amended Act are discussed in the following sections of this subpart.

Under section 3(s) the “enterprise” to be covered must be an “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” This is defined in section 3(s) as follows:

(a) Engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including

(b) Employees handling, selling or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.

As set forth in the preceding section an enterprise to be a “covered enterprise” must have at least some employees engaged in certain described activities. This requirement will be determined on an annual basis in order to give full effect to the intent of Congress. Thus, it is not necessary that the enterprise have two or more employees engaged in the named activities every week. An enterprise described in section 3(s)(1) or (5) of the prior Act or in section 3(s)(1) of the Act as it was amended in 1966 will be considered to have employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including the handling, selling or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, if during the annual period which it uses in calculating its annual sales for purposes of the other conditions of these sections, it regularly and recurrently has at least two or more employees engaged in such activities. On the other hand, it is plain that an enterprise that has employees engaged in such activities only in isolated or sporadic occasions, will not meet this condition.

The term “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” as used in section 3(s) of the Act in reference to employees who are so engaged is the same as the term which has been used in the Act for many years. The statutory definitions of these terms are set forth in §§ 779.12 through 779.16. The interpretative bulletin on general coverage part 776 of this chapter) contains the Division's interpretations as to which employees are “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” These interpretations are equally applicable under section 3(s) in determining which employees are “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of this section. A brief discussion of the guiding principles of retail or service establishments are “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” is set forth in subpart B of this part.

(a) “Goods” upon which the described activities are performed. Employees will be considered to be handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods within the meaning of section 3(s) if they engage in the described activities on “goods” which “have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.” They may be handling or working on such goods which the enterprise does not sell. The term “goods” is defined in section 3(i) of the Act. The definition is explained in § 779.107 and discussed comprehensively in part 776 of this chapter. As defined in section 3(i) of the Act, the term includes any part or ingredient of “goods” and, in general, includes “articles or subjects of commerce of any character.” Thus the term “goods,” as used in section 3(s), includes all goods which have been moved in or produced for commerce, such as stock-in-trade, or raw materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce.

(b) “Handling * * * or otherwise working on goods.” The term “handling * * * or otherwise working on goods” used in section 3(s) is substantially the same as the term used since 1938 in section 3(j) of the Act. Both terms will therefore be considered to have essentially the same meaning. (See part 776 of this chapter, the interpretative bulletin on the general coverage of the Act.) Thus, the activities encompassed in the term “handling or in any other manner working on goods” in section 3(s) are the same as the activities, encompassed in the similar term in section 3(j), by which goods are “produced” within the meaning of the Act. In general, the term “handling * * * or otherwise working on goods” includes employees who sort, screen, grade, store, pack, label, address, transport, deliver, print, type, or otherwise handle or work on the goods. The same will be true of employees who handle or work on “any part of ingredient of the goods” referred to in the discussion of the term “goods” in § 779.107. An employee will be considered engaged in “handling * * * or otherwise working on goods,” within the meaning of section 3(s), only if he performs the described activities on goods that “have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.” This requirement is discussed in §§ 779.242 and 779.243.

The statutory definition of the term “sale” or “sell” is quoted in § 779.15. As long as the employee in any way participates in the sale of the goods he will be considered to be “selling” the goods, whether he physically handles them or not. Thus, if the employee performs any work that, in a practical sense is an essential part of consummating the “sale” of the particular goods, he will be considered to be “selling” the goods. “Selling” goods, under section 3(s) has reference only to goods which “have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person,” as discussed in §§ 779.242 and 779.243.

For the purpose of section 3(s), goods will be considered to “have been moved * * * in commerce” when they have moved across State lines before they are handled, sold, or otherwise worked on by the employees. It is immaterial in such a case that the goods may have “come to rest” within the meaning of the term “in commerce” as interpreted in other respects, before they are handled, sold, or otherwise worked on by the employees in the enterprise. Such movement in commerce may take place before they have reached the enterprise, or within the enterprise, such as from a warehouse of the enterprise in one State to a retail store of the same enterprise located in another State. Thus, employees will be considered to be “handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in * * * commerce” where they are engaged in the described activities on “goods” that have moved across State lines at any time in the course of business, such as from the manufacturer to the distributor, or to the “enterprise,” or from one establishment to another within the “enterprise.” See the general discussion in part 776 of this chapter.

An employee will be considered to be handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods that have been “produced for commerce by any person” within the meaning of section 3(s), if he is performing the described activities with respect to goods which have been “produced for commerce” within the meaning of the Act. The term “produced” is defined in section 3(j) of the Act and, as explained above, has a well-established meaning under the existing law. (See § 779.104 and part 776 of this chapter.) The word as it is used in the context of the phrase “goods * * * produced for commerce by any person” in section 3(s) has the same meaning as in 3(j). Therefore, where goods are considered “produced for commerce” within the meaning of section 3(j) of the Act they also will be considered “produced for commerce” within the meaning of section 3(s). A discussion of when goods are produced for commerce within the meaning of section 3(j) is contained in § 779.108. Of course, within the meaning of section 3(s), the goods will be considered “produced for commerce” when they are so produced “by any person.”

Retailers of goods or services are primarily concerned with the enterprises described in sections 3(s)(1) and 3(s)(5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) of the Act as amended in 1966. Although section 3(s)(1) of the prior Act (under the 1961 amendments) had exclusive application to the retail and service industry, section 3(s)(1) of the Act as amended in 1966 may apply to any enterprise. This part is concerned only with retail or service establishments and enterprises. Enterprises described in clauses (2), (3), and (4) of section 3(s) are discussed herein only with respect to the application to them of provisions relating to retail or service establishments. Coverage of such enterprises and the application of section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act to enterprises generally are discussed in part 776 of this chapter. The statutory definitions of enterprises of interest to retailers under the prior Act and the Act as amended in 1966 are quoted in § 779.22.

(a) Retail or service enterprises may be covered under section 3(s)(1) of the prior Act or section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act although the latter is not limited to retail or service enterprises. A retail or service enterprise will be a covered enterprise under section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act if both the following conditions are met:

(1) The enterprise is “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” This requirement, which is discussed in §§ 779.237 through 779.243, applies to all covered enterprises under the provisions of both the prior and the amended Act; and,

(2) During the period February 1, 1967, through January 31, 1969, the enterprise has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated, of at least $500,000; or on and after February 1, 1969, the enterprise has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of at least $250,000, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated.

(b) A retail or service enterprise will be covered under section 3(s)(1) of the Act prior to the amendments if all four of the following conditions are met:

(1) The enterprise is “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” as explained above in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and,

(2) The enterprise has one or more “retail or service establishments” (the statutory definition of the term “retail or service establishment” is contained in § 779.24 and discussed in subpart D of this part) and,

(3) The enterprise has an annual gross volume of sales of $1 million or more, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated and,

(4) The enterprise “purchases or receives goods for resale that move or have moved across State lines (not in deliveries from the reselling establishment) which amount in total annual volume to $250,000 or more.” (This requirement is discussed in §§ 779.246 through 779.253.)

(c) Sections 779.258 through 779.260 discuss the meaning of “annual gross volume of sales made or business done” and §§ 779.261 through 779.264 discuss what excise taxes may be excluded from the annual gross volume. Sections 779.265 through 779.269 discuss the method of computing the annual gross volume where it is necessary to determine monetary obligations to employees under the Act.

To come within the scope of section 3(s)(1) of the prior Act, the enterprise, in addition to the other conditions, must purchase or receive goods for resale that move or have moved across State lines (not in deliveries from the reselling establishment) which amount in total annual volume to $250,000 or more. To meet this condition, it must be shown that (a) the enterprise purchases or receives goods for resale (§ 779.248), (b) that such goods move or have moved across State lines (§ 779.249), and (c) that such purchases and receipts amount in total annual volume to $250,000 or more (§ 779.253). Enterprises which do not meet this test may be covered under section 3(s)(1) of the present Act, which contains no interstate inflow requirement.

The term “goods” as used in section 3(s) of the prior and amended Act is defined in section 3(i) of the Act. The statutory definition is quoted in § 779.14, and is discussed in detail in part 776 of this chapter.

(a) Goods will be considered purchased or received “for resale” for purposes of the inflow test contained in section 3(s)(1) of the prior Act if they are purchased or received with the intention of being resold. This includes goods, such as stock in trade which is purchased or received by the enterprise for resale in the ordinary course of business. It does not include machinery, equipment, supplies, and other goods which the enterprise purchases to use in conducting its business. This is true even if such capital goods or other equipment, which the enterprise originally purchased for use in conducting its business, are at some later date actually resold. The distinction is to be found in whether the goods are purchased or received by the enterprise with the intention of reselling them in the same form or after further processing or manufacturing, or whether they are purchased with the intent of being consumed or used by the enterprise itself in the performance of its activities.

(b) Goods, such as raw materials or ingredients, are considered purchased or received by the enterprise “for resale,” even if such goods are purchased or received for the purpose of being processed or used as parts or ingredients in the manufacture of other goods which the enterprise intends to sell. For example, where the enterprise purchases flour for use in baking bread or pastries for sale, the goods will be considered to have been purchased “for resale.” It is immaterial whether the goods will be resold by the enterprise at retail or at wholesale.

In order to be included in the annual dollar volume for purposes of this test, the goods which the enterprise purchases or receives for resale must be goods that “move or have moved across the State lines.” Goods which have not moved across State lines before they are resold by the enterprise will not be included. The movement to which the phrase “move or have moved” has reference is that movement which the goods follow in their journey to the enterprise or within the enterprise to the establishment which sells the goods. Thus, if goods have moved across State lines at some stage in the flow of trade before they are actually sold by the enterprise, they will be considered to have moved across State lines. It is not material that the goods may have “come to rest” at some time before they are purchased or received and sold by the enterprise; nor is it material that some time may have elapsed between the time the goods have moved across State lines and the time they are purchased or received and sold by the enterprise. It is sufficient if at any time such goods have moved across State lines in the ordinary course of trade before resale by the enterprise. Much of the goods purchased by retailers are produced from a local intrastate supplier. In many instances these goods may have been stored at the supplier's establishment for some time. However, as long as the particular goods purchased have moved across State lines at some stage in the flow of trade to the retailer, they would have to be included in determining whether or not the enterprise has purchased or received for resale such out-of-State goods amounting to $250,000.

Goods which are purchased or received by the enterprise from within the State will be considered goods which “have moved across State lines” if they have previously been moved across State lines and have not lost their identity as out-of-State goods before they are purchased or received by the enterprise. Also goods which have been assembled within the State after they were moved across State lines but before they are purchased or received by the enterprise will still be regarded as goods which “have moved across State lines.” Such goods are still identifiable as goods brought into the State. This is also true in certain cases where goods are processed to some extent without losing their identity as out-of-State goods. For example, out-of-State furniture or television sets which are put together within the State, or milk from outside the State which is pasteurized and bottled within the State, before being purchased or received by the enterprise, are goods which “have moved across State lines.” They have already moved across State lines and they retain their out-of-State identity, despite the assembly or processing within the State.

(a) Goods which are purchased or received by the enterprise within the State will not be considered goods which have “moved across State lines” if the goods, although they came from outside the State, had been processed or manufactured so as to have lost their identity as out-of-State goods before they are purchased or received by the enterprise. This assumes, of course, that the goods so manufactured or processed do not move across State lines before they are sold by the enterprise. Thus where an enterprise buys bread baked within the State which does not move across State lines before it is resold by the enterprise, the bread is not “goods, which have moved across State lines” even if the flour and other ingredients came from outside the State. The same conclusion will follow, under the same circumstances, where clothing is manufactured from out-of-State fabrics.

(b) In those cases where goods are composed in part of goods which have, and in part of goods which have not, moved across State lines, the entire product will be considered as goods which have moved across State lines, if, as a practical matter, it substantially consists of goods which are identifiable as out-of-State goods. Whether goods have been so changed as to have lost their out-of-State identity is question which will depend upon all the facts in a particular case.

Goods which move across State lines only in the course of deliveries from the reselling establishment of the enterprise are not included as goods which “move or have moved across State lines.” Thus, goods delivered by the enterprise to its customers outside of the State are not, for that reason, considered goods which “move or have moved across State lines.” The purpose of the provision excepting “deliveries from the reselling establishment” is to limit the test to goods which flow into the enterprise and to exclude those goods which only cross State lines when they flow out of the enterprise as an incident of the sale of such goods by the enterprise. In other words, this is an inflow test and not an outflow test.

The goods which the establishment purchases or receives for resale that move or have moved across State lines must “amount in total annual volume to $250,000 or more.” It will be noted that taxes are not excluded in measuring this annual dollar volume. Thus, the total cost to the enterprise of such goods will be included in calculating the $250,000. This will include all taxes and other charges which the enterprise must pay for such goods. Generally, all charges will be included in the invoice of the goods. But whether included in the invoice or not, the total amount which the enterprise is required to pay for such goods, including charges for transportation, insurance, delivery, storage and any other will be included in computing the $250,000. The dollar volume of the goods purchased or received by the enterprise is the “annual” volume. The method of calculating the annual dollar volume is explained in § 779.266.

The ordinary gasoline service establishment is a covered enterprise under the Act if it has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $250,000 a year, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated, and meets the other tests of section 3(s)(5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act. Beginning February 1, 1969, enterprise coverage extends to any gasoline service establishment in an enterprise which has an annual gross volume in such amount, even if the establishment's annual gross volume is less. However, a gasoline service establishment with gross sales of less than $250,000, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated, may qualify for the minimum wage and overtime pay exemption provided in section 13(a)(2) of the Act if it meets the requirements of that section. Section 779.313 summarizes the requirements. An overtime pay exemption, which was repealed by the 1966 amendments, existed until February 1, 1967, for employees of ordinary gasoline service establishments under the prior Act. Thus, nonexempt employees of a covered gasoline service establishment enterprise are subject to the minimum wage standards for previously covered employment and the overtime pay requirements for newly covered employment as listed below:

(a) A gasoline service station or establishment is one which is typically a physically separate place of business engaged primarily (“primarily” meaning 50 percent or more) in selling gasoline and lubricating oils to the general public at the station or establishment. It may also sell other merchandise or perform minor repair work as an incidental part of the business. (See S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 32.) No difference in application of the terms “gasoline service establishment” and “gasoline service station” was intended by Congress (see Senate Report cited above) and both carry the same meaning.

(b) Under section 3(s)(5) of the prior Act and until February 1, 1969, under section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act, the covered enterprise is always a single establishment—a gasoline service establishment, even though such establishment may be a part of some larger enterprise for purposes of other provisions of the “enterprise” coverage of the new amendments. As noted above this term refers to what is commonly known as a gasoline service station, a separate “establishment.” What constitutes a separate establishment is discussed in §§ 779.303 through 779.306. While receipts from incidental sales and services are included and counted in determining the establishment's annual gross volume of sales for purposes of enterprise coverage, the establishment's primary source of receipts must be from the sale of gasoline and lubricating oils. (See Senate Report cited above.) An establishment which derives the greater part of its income from the sales of goods other than gasoline or lubricating oils will not be considered a “gasoline service establishment.” The mere fact that an establishment has a gasoline pump as an incidental part of other business activities in which it is principally engaged does not constitute it “a gasoline service establishment” within the meaning and for the purposes of these sections.

(a) The requirement that the enterprise must be “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” is discussed in §§ 779.237 through 779.243. Those sections explain which employees are engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person. In connection with the discussion in those sections as it concerns employees of gasoline service establishments, it should be noted that as a general rule such employees normally are “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the Act. For example, gasoline filling station employees servicing motor vehicles used in interstate transportation or in the production of goods for commerce have always been regarded as being “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the Act. Such employees will also be considered as engaged in handling, selling or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, if the gasoline or lubricating oils or the other goods with respect to which they perform the described activities have come from outside the State in which the establishment is located.

(b) For periods before February 1, 1969, a gasoline service establishment was within the scope of the enterprise coverage provisions of the Act only if its annual gross volume of sales was not less than $250,000, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated. Until such date, a gasoline service establishment which did not have such an annual gross volume of sales was not a covered enterprise, and enterprise coverage did not extend to it by virtue of the fact that it is an establishment of an enterprise which meets coverage tests of section 3(s). In determining whether the establishment has the requisite annual gross volume of sales the receipts from all sales of the establishment are included without limitation to the receipts from sales of gasoline and lubricating oil. In computing the annual gross volume of sales the gross receipts from all types of sales during a 12-month period are included. These gross receipts are measured by the price paid by the purchaser of the goods or services sold by the establishment (Sen. Rept. 1487, 89th Cong. second session p. 7). Thus, where the establishment sells gasoline for an oil company on commission, annual gross volume is based on the retail sale price and not on the smaller amount retained or received as commissions. A further discussion of what sales are included in the annual gross volume is contained in §§ 779.258 through 779.260.

(c) In computing the annual gross volume of sales, excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated are not counted. A discussion of the excise taxes which may be excluded under this provision is contained in §§ 779.261 through 779.264. Whether the particular taxes are “excise taxes at the retail level” depends upon the facts in each case. If the taxes are “excise taxes at the retail level” they will be excludable only if they are “separately stated.” Where a gasoline station posts a sign on or alongside the gasoline pumps indicating that a certain amount per gallon is for a specific excise tax, this will meet the requirement of being “separately stated”. The method of calculating annual gross volume of sales is explained in greater detail in §§ 779.265 through 779.269.

Section 13(b)(8) of the prior Act (before the 1966 amendments) contained an exemption from the overtime pay requirements for “any employee of a gasoline service station”. This exemption was applicable prior to February 1, 1967, without regard to the annual gross volume of sales of the gasoline service station by which the employee was employed. The removal of this exemption by the 1966 amendments brought non-exempt employees of covered gasoline service stations within the purview of the overtime requirements of the Act for the first time.

The Senate Report on the 1966 amendments reaffirmed the intent to measure the “dollar volume of sales or business” including “the gross receipts or gross business” to determine whether an enterprise is covered. This concept was first expressed in the Senate Report on the 1961 amendment (S. Rept. No. 145, 87th Congress, first session, p. 38). The phrase “business done” added by the 1966 amendments to section 3(s) merely reflects with more clarity the economic test of business size expressed in the prior Act in terms of “annual gross volume of sales” and conforms the language of the Act with the Congressional view expressed in the legislative history of the 1961 amendments. Thus, the annual gross volume of an enterprise must include any business activity in which it engages which can be measured on a dollar basis irrespective of whether the enterprise is tested under the prior or amended Act. The Senate Report on the 1966 amendments states:

(a) The annual gross volume of sales made or business done of an enterprise consists of its gross receipts from all types of sales made and business done during a 12-month period. The gross volume of sales made or business done means the gross dollar volume (not limited to income) derived from all sales and business transactions including, for example, gross receipts from service, credit, or other similar charges. Credits for goods returned or exchanged and rebates and discounts, and the like, are not ordinarly included in the annual gross volume of sales or business. The gross volume of sales or business includes the receipts from sales made or business done by the retail or service establishments of the enterprise as well as the sales made or business done by any other establishments of the enterprise, exclusive of the internal transactions between them. Gross volume is measured by the price paid by the purchaser for the property or service sold to him, as stated in the Senate Committee Report (§ 779.258). It is not measured by profit on goods sold or commissions on sales made for others. The dollar value of sales or business of the entire enterprise in all establishments is added together to determine whether the applicable dollar test is met. The fact that one or more of the retail or service establishments of the enterprise may have less than $250,000 in annual dollar volume and may meet the other requirements for exemption from the pay provisions of the Act under section 13(a)(2), does not exclude the dollar volume of sales or business of that establishment from the annual gross volume of the enterprise. However, the dollar volume of an establishment derived from transactions with other establishments in the same enterprise does not ordinarily constitute part of the annual gross volume of the enterprise as a whole. The computation of the annual gross volume of sales or business of the enterprise is made “exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated”. The taxes which may be excluded are discussed in §§ 779.261 through 779.264. The methods of calculating the annual gross volume of sales of an enterprise are set forth in §§ 779.265 through 779.269.

(b) In the ordinary case the functions of a leased department are controlled or unified in such a way that it is included in the establishment and therefore in the enterprise in which it is located, as discussed in § 779.225. The applicability of enterprise coverage and certain exemptions to such a leased department depends upon the enterprise coverage and the exemption status of the establishment in which the leased department is located. The annual gross volume of such a leased department is included in the annual gross volume of the establishment in which it is located as well as in the annual gross volume of the enterprise of which such establishment is a part.

(c) Likewise, where franchise or other arrangements result in the creation of a larger enterprise by means of operational restrictions so that the establishment, dealer, or concessionaire is an integral part of the related activities of the enterprise which grants the franchise, right, or concession, as discussed in §§ 779.229 and 779.232, it will follow that the annual gross volume of sales made or business done of such an enterprise includes the dollar volume of sales or business of each related establishment dealer, or concessionaire.

Where merchandise is taken in trade when a sale is made, the annual gross volume of sales or business will include the gross amount of the sale before deduction of the allowance on such trade-in merchandise. This is so even though an overallowance or excessive value is allowed on the trade-in merchandise. In turn, when the trade-in merchandise is sold the amount of the sale will be included in the annual gross volume.

Sections 3(s)(1) and 13(a)(2) of the amended Act as well as sections 3(s)(1), 3(s)(2), 3(s)(5), and 13(a)(2)(iv) of the prior Act provide for the exclusion of “excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated” in computing the gross annual volume of sales or business or the annual dollar volume of sales for purposes of certain of the provisions contained in those sections. The Senate Committee report states as follows with respect to this provision:

(a) Federal excise taxes are imposed at the retail level on highway vehicle fuels other than gasoline under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 4041. Such excise taxes are levied at the retail level on any liquid fuel sold for use, or used in a diesel-powered highway vehicle. A similar tax is imposed on the sale of such special motor fuels as benzene and liquefied petroleum gas when used as a motor fuel. To the extent that these taxes are separately stated to the customer, they may be excluded from gross volume of sales. The extent to which State taxes are levied at the retail level, and thus excludable when separately stated, depends, of course, upon the law of the State concerned. However, as a general rule, State, county, and municipal sales taxes are levied at the retail level, and to the extent that they are separately stated, may be excluded. All State excise taxes on gasoline are, for purposes of section 3(s), taxes levied at the retail level, which, if separately stated, may be excluded.

(b) The circumstances surrounding the levying and collection of the Federal excise taxes on gasoline, tires, and inner tubes reflect that, although they are listed under the title of “Manufacturers Excise Taxes,” they are, in practical operation, taxes “at the retail level.” Federal excise taxes on gasoline, tires, and inner tubes, when “separately stated,” may therefore be excluded in computing the annual gross volume of an enterprise for the purpose of determining coverage under section 3(s)(1) of the Act and section 13(a)(2) for purposes of applying the $250,000 test for determining the retail and service establishment exemption of an establishment in a covered enterprise.

There are also a wide variety of taxes levied at the manufacturer's or distributor's level and not at the retail level. It should be noted, however, that the circumstances surrounding the levying and collection of taxes must be carefully considered. The facts concerning the levying and collection of Federal excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco reflect that such taxes are upon the manufacture of these products and that they are neither levied nor collected at the retail level and thus are not excludable. However, in some cases the circumstances may reflect that despite the fact that such taxes may be levied upon the manufacturer or distributor, nevertheless they may be, in practical operation, taxes at the retail level and may be so regarded for the purpose of this provision.

A tax is separately stated where it clearly appears that it has been added to the sales price as a separate, identifiable amount, even though there was no invoice or sales slip. In the absence of a sales slip or invoice, the amount of the tax may either be separately stated orally at the time of sale, or visually by means of a poster or other sign reasonable designed to inform the purchaser that the amount of the tax, either as a stated sum per unit or measured by the gross amount of the sale, or as a percentage of the price, is included in the sales price. A sign on a gasoline pump indicating in cents per gallon the amount of State and Federal highway fuel excise taxes is an example of “separately stated” taxes.

The annual gross dollar volume of sales made or business done of an enterprise or establishment consists of the gross receipts from all of its sales or its volume of business done during a 12-month period. Where a computation of the annual gross volume is necessary to determine monetary obligations to employees under the Act whether in an enterprise which has one or more retail or service establishments, or in any establishment in such enterprise, or in any gasoline service establishment, it must be based on the most recent prior experience which it is practicable to use. This was recognized in the Congress when the legislation was under consideration. (S. Rept. No. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 38 discusses in detail the calculation of the annual gross volume.) When gross receipts of an enterprise show that the annual dollar volume of sales made or business done meets the statutory tests for coverage and nonexemption, the employer must comply with the Act's monetary provisions from that time on or until such time as the tests are not met. (See § 779.266.)

(a) No computations of annual gross dollar volume are necessary to determine coverage or exemption in those enterprises in which the gross receipts regularly derived each year from the business are known by the employers to be substantially in excess or substantially under the minimum dollar volume specified in the applicable provision of the Act. Also, where the enterprise or establishment, during the portion of its current income tax year up to the end of the current payroll period, has already had a gross volume of sales or business in excess of the dollar amount specified in the statute, it is plain that its annual dollar volume currently is in excess of the statutory amount, and that the Act applies accordingly. The computation described in paragraph (b) of this section, therefore need not be made. Nor is it required where the enterprise or establishment has not yet in such current year exceeded the statutory amount in its gross volume of sales or business, if it has had, in the most recently ended year used by it for income tax purposes, a gross volume of sales made and business done in excess of the amount specified in the Act. In such event, the enterprise or establishment will be deemed to have an annual gross volume in excess of the statutory amount unless the employer establishes, through use of the method set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, an annual gross volume of sales made or business done which is less than the amount specified in the Act. The method described in paragraph (b) of this section shall be used, as intended by the Congress (see S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong. first session, p. 38), for computation of annual dollar volume in all cases when such a computation becomes necessary in order to determine the applicability of provisions of the Act.

(b) In order to determine, when there may be doubt, whether an enterprise or establishment has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done in excess of the amount specified in the statute, and analysis will be made at the beginning of each quarter-year so that the employer will know whether or not the dollar volume tests have been met for the purpose of complying with the law in the workweeks ending in the current quarter-year. The total of the gross receipts from all its sales or business during a 12-month period which immediately precedes the quarter-year being tested will be the basis for analysis. When it is necessary to make a determination for enterprises or establishments which are operated on a calendar year basis for income tax or sales or other accounting purposes the quarter-year periods tested will coincide with the calendar quarters (January 1-March 31; April 1-June 30; July 1-September 30; October 1-December 31). On the other hand, where enterprises or establishments are operated on a fiscal year basis, which consists of an annual period different from the calendar year, the four quarters of the fiscal period will be used in lieu of calendar quarters in computing the annual volume. Once either basis has been adopted it must be used in making subsequent calculations. The sales records maintained as a result of the accounting procedures used for tax or other business purposes may be utilized in computing the annual dollar volume provided the same accounting procedure is used consistently and that such procedure accurately reflects the annual volume of sales or business.

It is possible that the analysis performed at the beginning of each quarter to determine the applicability of the monetary provisions of the Act may reveal changes in the annual gross volume or other determinative factors which result in the enterprise or establishment meeting or ceasing to meet one or more of the tests for enterprise coverage or establishment exemption. Thus, enterprise coverage may result where the annual volume increases from an amount under to an amount over $250,000. Also, an enterprise having an annual gross volume of more than $1 million and meeting the requirements for a covered retail enterprise under the prior Act on the basis of previous sales analyses may fall below $1 million when the annual gross volume is computed at the beginning of the quarter being tested and as a result qualify only as a newly covered enterprise for the current quarter under the amended Act. Similarly, an enterprise previously subject to new coverage pay standards, having an annual gross volume of more than $250,000 but less than $1 million on the basis of previous sales analyses, may increase its annual gross volume to $1 million or more when recomputed at the beginning of the quarter being tested. It will thus become for the current quarter an enterprise in which employees are subject to the pay standards for employment covered under the Act prior to the amendments, provided that it meets the other conditions as discussed in § 779.245.

Where it is not practicable to compute the annual gross volume of sales or business under paragraph (b) of § 779.266 in time to determine obligations under the Act for the current quarter, an enterprise or establishment may use a 1-month grace period. If this 1-month grace period is used, the computations made under this section will determine its obligations under the Act for the 3-month period commencing 1 month after the end of the preceding calendar or fiscal quarter. Once adopted the same basis must be used for each successive 3-month period.

When a new business is commenced the employer will necessarily be unable for a time to determine its annual dollar volume on the basis of a full 12-month period as described above. In many cases it is readily apparent that the enterprise or establishment will or will not have the requisite annual dollar volume specified in the Act. For example, where the new business consists of a large department store, or a supermarket, it may be clear from the outset that the business will meet the annual dollar volume tests so as to be subject to the requirements of the Act. In other cases, where doubt exists, the gross receipts of the new business during the first quarter year in which it has been in operation will be taken as representative of its annual dollar volume, in applying the annual volume tests of sections 3(s) and 13(a)(2), for purposes of determining its obligations under the Act in workweeks falling in the following quarter year period. Similarly, for purposes of determining its obligations under the Act in workweeks falling within ensuing quarter year periods, the gross receipts of the new business for the completed quarter year periods will be taken as representative of its annual dollar volume in applying the annual volume tests of the Act. After the new business has been in operation for a full calendar or fiscal year, the analysis can be made by the method described in paragraph (b) of § 779.266 with use of the grace period described in § 779.268, if necessary.