Joint Labor Management Committee of the Retail Food Industry

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520998933
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bluffton, SC, USA
Phone
6128606456
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$351,562
Expenses
$330,431
Assets
$615,824
Liabilities
$902

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELE A MURPHY (CHAIR): $250,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote and support communication and the sharing of common concerns among labor and management organizations that are members of the committee, and to provide a forum for the discussion of long-term strategic issues within the food industry and the methods by which common goals may best be attained, and to generally perpetuate the growth and vitality of participating labor and management organizations.

What it reported doing in 2025

The committee promoted and supported communication and the sharing of common concerns among labor and management organizations that are members of the committee, provided a forum for the discussion of long-term strategic issues within the food industry and the methods by which common goals may best be attained, and perpetuated the growth and vitality of participating labor and management organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 73
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 42.1%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.86; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 50% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38% of revenue deployed · 42.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $250K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.