Summary

Frank Murphy Phillips v. Walling — Opinion of the Court

The prime function of petitioner's chain store system is to sell groceries at retail. Like most large chains, however, petitioner has found it economically feasible to perform and integrate both the retail and wholesale functions of the grocery business. The independent wholesaler or middleman has been eliminated from the channel of distribution of petitioner's merchandise. Petitioner not only operates the retail outlets but purchases the merchandise in quantity from producers, stores it in a warehouse and systematically allots it to the individual stores.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy Phillips v. Walling — Opinion of the Court

Here petitioner's warehouse and central office employees are performing wholesale duties in the very midst of the stream of interstate commerce. They constantly deal with both incoming and outgoing interstate shipments. Such tasks are completely unlike those pursued by employees of the small local retailers, who were the sole concern of Congress in Section 13 (a) (2) . These duties, rather, are economically, functionally and physically like those of the independent wholesaler's employees who, when engaged in interstate commerce, are admittedly entitled to the benefits of the Act.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy Phillips v. Walling — Opinion of the Court

Even if, as petitioner urges, the word 'establishment' referred to an entire business or enterprise, the combined retail-wholesale nature of petitioner's interstate business would prevent it from properly being classified as a local 'retail establishment.' But if, as we believe, Congress used the word 'establishment' as it is normally used in business and in government [6] -as meaning a distinct physical place of business petitioner's enterprise is composed of 49 retail establishments and a single wholesale establishment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature