Industrial Conference Board

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 625 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD, ETC. 625
WE WILL NOT try to cause D. S. McClanahan & Son, Inc ., to refuse to hire
any worker because he does not have clearance to the job from Local 624 A-B
or has not been referred by us.
WE WILL NOT try to cause D. S. McClanahan & Son, Inc., to refuse to hire
any worker because he has engaged in lawful union activities which do not
meet with our approval.
WE WILL NOT try to cause D. S. McClanahan & Son, Inc., to discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment in any way that violates
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL pay Robert P. Walker for the time he lost from work with D. S.
McClanahan & Son, Inc., because of our having caused that Company not to
hire him, and we will notify Walker and that Company that we do not object to
Walker's working for any employer.
All our members in Mississippi are free to remain members of our Union and to
engage in any or all lawful union activities , and they also are free to terminate their
memberships and to cease any or all union activities.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 624 A-B,
Union.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days after its date, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any questions about this notice or whether Local 624 A-B is
complying with its provisions , they may communicate with the Board 's Regional
Office, Seventh Floor, Falls Building, 22 N. Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee,
Telephone No. Jackson 7-5451.
Industrial Conference Board and Kitsap County Retail Drug-
gists' Association and its Member Employers I and Retail
Clerks Local Union No. 381, Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation , AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-CA-2571. Mar•cli. 20, 196.9
DECISION AND ORDER
Unfair labor practice charges were filed by Retail Clerks Local
Union No. 381, herein called the Union, on September 21, 1962, against
Respondents, Industrial Conference Board, Kitsap County Retail
Druggists' Association, and the Association's member employers.
Thereafter, on October 12, 1962, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region, issued a complaint and notice of hearing, alleging that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and
(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. Respondents
filed their answer on October 23, 1962.
' The 12 member employers named as Respondents are: Milan J. Booth and Robert E.
Brown, d/b/a Booth 's Bremerton Drug; Clyde F. Allen , d/b/a Clyde's Pharmacy; Vern
N. Castle, d/ b/a Castle's Drug; Hannah & Powell Drug Corporation; Smalley Drug, Inc.,
d/b/a Lakeside Drug ; Duwaine McBride, d/b/a McBride 's Westgate Pharmacy ; Nelson
Thrifty Drugs, Inc. ; Payless Drug Store , Inc. ; Smalley Drug, Inc, d/b/a Smalley 's Drug;
Chester H. Swanson , d/b/a Swanson 's Charleston Drug; Wallach Thrifty Drugs, Inc
and West Bay Drug Corporation
141 NLRB No. 58.
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 19, 1962, the parties entered into a. stipulation by
which they waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner, the making
of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Trial Examiner, and
the issuance of an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
and they also agreed to submit the stipulated record directly to the
Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. The
parties further provided that the record in this case should consist of
the charge, the complaint, the answer, and the stipulation together
with the exhibits attached thereto. By an order dated December 3,
1962, the Board approved the stipulation and ordered the proceeding
transferred to, and continued before, the Board for the purpose of
making findings of fact and conclusions of law and for the issuance
of a Decision and Order. The Board further directed that briefs
be submitted not later than December 19, 1962. Respondents, the
Union, and the General Counsel filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated, its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Kitsap County Retail Druggists' Association, herein called the
Association, is an informal employers' association having as members
14 druggists in Kitsap County, State of Washington, banded together
for bargaining purposes. Respondent Association acts as the agent
of its employer-members in labor disputes and, on their behalf, nego-
tiates and enters into collective-bargaining agreements with labor
organizations that represent employees of its members.
Industrial Conference Board, herein called ICB, is an employer
representative with offices in Tacoma, Washington; it acts as agent
for the Respondent Association and Respondent member employers
in labor disputes and in negotiations of collective-bargaining
agreements.
Each of the Respondent member employers operates a drugstore in
Kitsap County, Washington. During the past year, the members of
Respondent Association, in the course and conduct of their business,
had gross annual retail sales in excess of $1,000,000 and they purchased
and received, products from outside the State of Washington in excess
of $50,000 annually.
It was stipulated, and we find, that each Respondent during all
times material herein has been, and now is, an employer within the
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD, ETC. 627
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Local Union No. 381, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, is now, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Since 1943, the Union has had successive collective-bargaining con-
tracts with Respondent Association on behalf of member employers
and has bargained for a unit of sales clerks and pharmacists on a
multiemployer basis through the Respondent Association. Since 1953,
Respondent ICB has acted as bargaining agent for Respondent As-
sociation and its member employers.2 The most recent contract,
which contained a union-shop clause, expired June 1, 1962. Bargain-
ing negotiations commenced on May 1, 1962, and continued until agree-
ment was reached in November 1962, with the main issue in conflict
relating to wage rates. The members of the Union had voted by secret
ballot to authorize a strike if a satisfactory settlement was not ob-
tained, and on September 10, 1962, when the Union's membership
rejected the Respondents' last offer, the officers of the Union decided
to take strike action. Accordingly, the Union, on Tuesday, Septem-
ber 11, 1962, commenced picketing Olberg Thrifty Drug Store, a mem-
ber of the Association bargaining unit.
With this picketing of Olberg, the Respondent member employers
named herein, in accord with a prior agreement between themselves 3
acted in concert and, with the knowledge, acquiescence, and active par-
ticipation of Respondent ICB and Respondent Association, tempo-
rarily laid off all union members who were employed in the unit repre-
sented by the Union.' Thus, beginning on September 11, 1962, most
2 The parties stipulated that they have had a continuous series of collective -bargaining
agreements ; that there had never been an unfair labor practice charge filed against the
Respondents by the Union until the present charge ; that the Union had never picketed the
Respondents until the present picketing commenced ; and that there was never a grievance
between the parties which required invoking arbitration procedures.
8 The agreement referred to was prepared and dated August 31 , 1962, and was signed
by all member employers named herein prior to September 11, 1962. This agreement
reads:
The undersigned members of the Kitsap County Retail Druggists ' Association recog-
nize the principle that a strike against one is a strike against all and shall suspend
their employees , who are members of the Retail Clerks Union , in order to protect the
competitive position of any member whose operation is closed due to a labor dispute
which is not the result of a labor contract violation.
One of the fourteen member employers in the Association unit did not sign this agreement
and apparently did not participate in the events which followed . That employer is not
made a party respondent herein . Nor is the picketed member employer who did sign this
agreement named as a respondent.
The names of the individual employees involved are set forth in Appendix A.
708-006-64-vol. 141-41
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Respondent employers handed most of their union-member em-
ployees a notice dated September 11, 1962, entitled "NOTICE TO ALL
OUR EMPLOYEE MEMBERS OF RETAIL CLERKS UNION
LOCAL NO. 381." The initial sentence of this notice states :
You are hereby notified that, because of the strike action taken
by your Union and the establishment of pickets, you are hereby
temporarily suspended from employment .... When this matter
is settled and the pickets removed, your employment will be
resumed.
This notice was prepared by Respondent ICB for distribution to each
union member employed by each Respondent member employer.
On September 12, 1962, Respondent ICB, on behalf of the Respond-
ent Association and the individual Respondent member employers,
notified the Union by letter that :
Because of strike action taken by your Union and the establish-
ing of picket lines around Olberg Thrifty Drug, all members of
the Kitsap County Retail Druggists' Association have tempo-
rarily suspended their employees, members of your Local Union.
During the period from September 11 until November 9, 1962, the
member employers refused to allow their respective employees named
in Appendix A, who were union members and known to be such by
said Respondents, to work while the Union picketed one of the mem-
bers of the Respondent Association even though the Respondent mem-
ber employers remained open. The named employers, during said
period, operated their stores with nonunion employees and other per-
sonnel, including owners, supervisors, office help, and relatives of
owners. Some utilized employees hired prior to the lockout who
were not union members.5 At all times, all member employers con-
tinued their normal operations of the drugstores, including the non-
drug departments, making use of their regular radio and newspaper
advertising.6
5 While locking out union members employed in the unit, Respondent Payless, at all times
material herein, retained in its employ four employees who were working in the bargain-
ing unit prior to the lockout and who were known by Respondent Payless not to be mem-
bers of the Union Of these four, one was hired as a permanent employee and three were
hired prior to, but in anticipation of, the strike and lockout specifically for the purpose
of working during such period. While locking out known union-member employees,
Respondents Nelson and Wallach, each similarly retained one known nonmember, and
Respondent McBride likewise retained one regular part-time employee who was not a
union member Respondent Clyde and Hannah & Powell, while locking out union-member
employees, each informed one employee known not to be a member of the Union that she
could work during the lockout if she wished These individuals are discussed, infra
Respondent Castle appears to have had no union-member employees. It retained two em-
ployees known by it not to be members of the Union. The remaining six member employers
appear to have had no employees in the unit who were not members of the Union at the
time the lockout occurred.
During this same period Respondent member employers whose stores were located in
Bremerton, Washington, posted signs in their windows which read: "AS MEMBERS OF
BREMERTON RETAIL DRUG ASSOCIATION, THIS STORE & ALL BREME, RTON
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD, ETC. 629
On November 9, 1962, the Respondent member employers recalled
all the temporarily suspended union-member employees with one ex-
ception.' Negotiations continued and the parties reached agreement
on the terms of a bargaining agreement which was ratified by the
union membership on November 15,1962.
The General Counsel contends that, by the aforesaid conduct, Re-
spondents engaged in a retaliatory lockout discriminatory in nature,
and that Respondents, by discriminating with respect to the terms
of employment and interfering with their employees' Section 7 rights,
violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondents deny that their actions were intended to undermine
or eliminate the Union's representation of these employees. They
contend, rather, that they merely sought to maintain and preserve the
solidarity and integrity of their multiemployer bargaining unit
against the "whipsaw" strike tactics adopted by the Union-an ob-
jective which they assert they were entitled to pursue under the
Buffalo Linen 8 rule.
The facts before us do not warrant the conclusions urged by Re-
spondents. Here, it is undisputed that Respondents agreed in advance
to "suspend their employees, who are members of the Retail Clerks
Union," in the event that a labor dispute closed the store of one of
their number. Thus, the Respondents specifically agreed in certain
circumstances to treat union-member employees in a particular man-
ner with respect to their employment tenure, precisely because they
were union members and, in so doing, to discriminate between em-
ployees on the basis of union membership. Consequently, in accord
with this agreement, when picketing occurred at Olberg, employees
in the unit who were union members were singled out on that basis
for temporary suspension, whereas nonmember employees were either
retained or accorded a choice of remaining at work while the Employ-
ers continued to operate the stores. Thus, not only in its conception
but also in its implementation, the lockout was purposefully dis-
criminatory as between union-member and nonmember employees in
DRUG STORES ARE SUBJECTED TO STRIKE ACTION BY THE RETAIL CLERKS
UNION" Respondents Hannah & Powell and West Bay Drugs , who are located outside
Bremerton did not put up signs. Also , beginning several days after the lockout, Respond-
ents Payless and Booth , whose stores were within one block of the picketed Olberg Drug
Store, employed pickets to appear in front of their respective stores wearing a placard
beaiing legends similar to those carried by union pickets in front of Olberg Thrifty Drugs
This picketing was not requested or authorized by the Union , and Respondents claim that
pickets were utilized because of the proximity to the picketed store
7 The stipulation states that "It is not known at this time whether Frederick M.
Bickenbach has received notice offering him reinstatement or whether he has ever notified
Respondent Payless that he would not be willing to return to work." There is no indica-
tion that his suspension, and the reason therefor , differed in any way from that of other
employees involved Any variation in the recall is a proper subject for the compliance
stage of this proceeding and shall be provided for in our Order herein
BN.L R.B v Truck Drivers Local Union No 449, etc . ( Buffalo Linen Supply Co.), 353
U.S. 87, affg . 109 NLRB 447.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the unit .' Under these circumstances it is immaterial that the Re-
spondents had no hostility to the Union and no specific intent to dis-
courage their employees ' membership in the Union . 10 Further,
Respondents having combined to act and having acted in concert in
a discriminatory manner, we do not consider the discrimination to be
lessened by the coincidence that one Respondent employer , Castle,
had no union -member employees and that 6 of the 12 Respondent
employers had only union-member employees in the unit when the
lockout was put into effect . All Respondents were parties to the
unlawful arrangement . Castle , by retaining its two employees be-
cause they were not union members , and the six who gave lockout
notices to all current employees in the unit because they were union
members, were no less a party to the illegal discrimination than those
five employers who had employees in each category and discriminated
between them as to tenure of employment solely on the basis of union
membership.
Moreover, the lockout in the circumstances present here was not an
incidental result of a defensive shutdown to preserve the established
unit. As the stores of all Respondents , as well as that of the picketed
Employer , remained in operation at all times material herein, the
lockout was clearly retaliatory for the purpose of inhibiting lawful,
concerted activity . 11 The Buffalo Linen 12 is therefore inapplicable.
We find, therefore , that by locking out employees and replacing
them while they were still willing to work and were not on strike, the
Respondents interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in
the exercise of their rights to bargain collectively and to strike in
furtherance of economic demands , and thereby violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act. We also find that by such conduct and by apply-
ing the lockout only to union-member employees while retaining non-
member employees , Respondents engaged in conduct constituting un-
lawful discrimination in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, in
discouraging employees from supporting the Union and from engag-
ing in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection."
The special status of two employees requires consideration . Evelyn
Love had made known to her employer , Respondent Clyde, her in-
tention to join the Union, but had not yet joined when the lockout oc-
,curred . Respondent Clyde informed her that she could work if she
-wanted to. With knowledge of and because of the notification re-
ceived from their employer by fellow employees who were union mem-
6 See Anchorage Businessmen's Association , Drugstore Unit , etc, 124 NLRB 662, enfd.
289 F . 2d 619 ( C.A. 9).
1OThe Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union , AFL (A. H. Bull
Steamship Company ) v. N L R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 45.
11 See John Brown, et al., d/b/a Brown Food Store, 137 NLRB 73.
' See footnote 8, supra.
is Anchorage Businessmen 's Association, Drugstore Unit , etc., supra, footnote 9.
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD, ETC. 631
bers, Love refrained from returning to work on a voluntary basis and
joined the Union that same day. Similarly, Dolores De Philipis,
who her employer, Respondent Hannah & Powell, knew was not a
union member at the time but had a withdrawal card, was told that
she could work during the lockout or could leave. De Philipis chose
not to work for the duration of the lockout on a voluntary basis. It is
urged that these two employees were constructively locked out. How-
ever, as the evidence establishes that their respective employers, at the
time of the lockout of union members, would have permitted them to
continue working during the lockout and so informed them at that
time, and they chose to remain away from work during the period of
the lockout, we do not accept the Union's contention that they were
constructively locked out. Instead, in our view their status during
the lockout was that of unfair labor practice strikers.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with their operations described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be ordered that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that certain Respondents have discriminatorily locked
out their employees it will be ordered that each such Respondent
make whole its respective employees for loss of earnings by paying
them a sum equal to that which each would have earned from the
time of their discriminatory lockout to the date when he was returned
to work. Loss of pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
a deduction for net earnings during that period. Interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum shall be added to the backpay to be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716." As it appears that the discriminatorily locked out em-
ployees have been reinstated to their jobs and as there is no allegation
that any employee was discriminatorily given a different job upon
his return, no general requirement of reinstatement will be specified
"For the reasons stated in Iatia, Member Leedom would not grant interest on backpay.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the Order below.15 However, with respect to employee Frederick
M. Bickenbach, as to whose reinstatement no facts were available, as
discussed in footnote 7, supra, we shall include the customary rein-
statement order, with backpay from the date he was locked out to the
date of any offer of reinstatement. With respect to Dolores De
Philipis and Evelyn Love, unfair labor practice strikers, we shall re-
quire their employers, respectively, upon application therefor, to
offer them reinstatement and to pay them backpay, in the event of
failure to make such offer, backpay to begin running 5 days after such
application to the date of an offer of reinstatement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, we adopt the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAw
1. Each of the Respondents is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily locking out certain employees the Respond-
ents have discouraged membership in the Union and have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By the lockout the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and have thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents Industrial Con-
ference Board; Kitsap County Retail Druggists' Association; Milan
J. Booth and Robert E. Brown, d/b/a Booth's Bremerton Drug;
Clyde F. Allen, d/b/a Clyde's Pharmacy; Vern N. Castle, d/b/a
Castle's Drugs; Hannah & Powell Drug Corporation; Smalley Drug,
Inc., d/b/a Lakeside Drug; Duwaine McBride, d/b/a McBride's
Westgate Pharmacy ; Nelson Thrifty Drugs, Inc. ; Payless Drug Store,
Inc.; Smalley Drug, Inc., d/b/a Smalley's Drug; Chester H. Swan-
15 Because employees Love and De Philipis were unfair labor practice strikers rather
than discriminatorily locked-out employees they are not entitled to backpay for the period
during which they absented themselves because of the lockout . However, as unfair labor
practice strikers , they are entitled to reinstatement upon application therefor
INDUSTRIAL CON VERENCE BOARD, ETC. 633
son, d/b/a Swanson's Charleston Drug; Wallach Thrifty Drugs, Inc.;
and West Bay Drug Corporation, their respective officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Retail Clerks Local Union No.
381, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, by discrim-
inatorily locking out their employees who are union members because
of union membership or activity, or by participating in such discrim-
inatory lockout, or by engaging in a lockout while continuing to
operate their establishments, or in any other manner discriminating
in regard to employees' hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of the employment relationship.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
zation, to form, join, or assist Retail Clerks Local Union No. 381,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for the
purpose of collective-bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Respondent Payless Drug Store, Inc., shall, if it has not already
done so, offer immediate and full reinstatement to Frederick M.
Bickenbach to his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, in the manner
provided in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Respondent Clyde F. Allen, d/b/a Clyde's Pharmacy, shall,
if it has not already done so, upon application therefor, offer inune-
diate and full reinstatement to Evelyn Love to her former or substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make whole Evelyn Love in the manner
provided in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Respondent Hannah & Powell Drug Corporation, shall, if it
has not already done so, upon application therefor, offer immediate
and full reinstatement to Dolores De Philipis to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make whole Dolores De Philipis in
the manner provided in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Each Respondent member employer shall make whole its em-
ployees listed in the Appendix A who were prevented from working
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for it, for the period of operations during the lockout in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Each Respondent shall make available to the Board or its
agents, upon reasonable request, all payroll records, social security
payment records, personnel records and reports, and all other such
data convenient for a calculation of the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Each said Respondent shall post at its establishment copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 16 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by authorized representatives, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(g) Each Respondent shall notify the Regional Director for the
Nineteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps said Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1° In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
If, during the compliance stage of these proceedings , it appears appropriate to the
Regional Director to have separate notices signed jointly by each Respondent member
employer and Respondents ICB and Association rather than a single notice signed jointly
by all Respondents , he is hereby empowered to do so.
APPENDIX A
Milan J. Booth, and Robert E. Brown, d/b/a Booth's Bremerton Drug:
Stella Hill Pearl Limbocker
Irma Baker
Clyde F. Allen, d/b/a Clyde's Pharmacy:
Elsie Flanagan
Hannah & Powell Drug Corporation:
Genevieve Bowdoin Hazel Fries
Smalley Drug, Inc., d/b/a Lakeside Drug :
Selma Henderickson Alice Dressling
Duwaine McBride, d/b/a McBride's Westgate Pharmacy:
Desdemona Palmer
Nelson Thrift Drugs, Inc.:
Lloyd Burrows W. L. Parmele
Dolores Gebhausen Paul Port
Florence Hamilton Charlotte Rankin
Mary Ann Rott
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD, ETC. 635
Payless Drug Store, Inc. :
Frederick M. Bickenbach Joseph Kornish
James Bowen Don Owens
Myrtle Ewers Bernardine Peterson
Richard Haugland Milford Schierholtz
Bonnie Hayes Esther Rosenquist
Janie Hayes Richard L. Valantine
Betty Jacobs Rose White
Betty Johnson Anna Womac
Jerry Kemmer Camilla Zublasing
Smalley Drug, Inc., d/b/a Smalley's Drug :
Mary Kornish Dorothy Rothenberg
Elizabeth Briggs
Chester H. Swanson, d/b/a Swanson's Charleston Drug :
Rosella Strand
Wallach Thrifty Drugs, Inc. :
James Anderson Phil Shanley
Delores Blank Archie Skoog
LaVerne Johnson Virginia Nupp
Mary Kirby Hazel Korthour
West Bay Drug Corporation:
Loretta Truax Gwen Kawkins
Thelma Maxon
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Frederick
M. Bickenbach, Evelyn Love, and Dolores De Philipis, to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, in the manner
provided in the Board's Order.
WE WILL make whole the employees locked out during the
period on and after September 11, 1962, and until they were re-
instated for any loss of pay suffered at a time when this drugstore
was open for business. The employees to be made whole are
listed in the accompanying Appendix A.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the Retail Clerks Local
Union No. 381, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, by discriminatorily locking out our employees who are
union members because of union membership or activity, or by
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
participating in such discriminatory lockout, or by engaging in
a lockout while continuing to operate our establishment, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to employees' hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of the employ-
ment relationship.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist Retail Clerks Local
Union No. 381, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively,
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
All our respective employees are free to become or remain members
of any labor organization or to refrain from such action except to the
extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity
with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. We will not discriminate
in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of membership in or ac-
tivity on behalf of any labor organization.
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) ( Title)
KITSAP COUNTY RETAIL DRUGGISTS' ASSOCIATION,
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
MILAN J. BOOTH AND ROBERT E. BROWN, D/B/A
BOOTH'S BREMERTON DRUG,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representati ve) (Title)
CLYDE F. ALLEN, D/B/A
CLYDE'S PHARMACY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD, ETC-. 637
VERN N. CASTLE, D/B/A
CASTLES DRUG,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
HANNAH & POWELL DRUG CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
SMALLEY DRUG, INC., D/B/A
LAKESIDE DRUG,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
DUWAINE MCBRIDE, D/B/A MCBRIDE'S
WESTGATE PHARMACY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NELSON THRIFTY DRUGS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------- -------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
PAYLESS DRUG STORE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
SMALLEY DRUG, INC., D/B/A
SMALLEY'S DRUG,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
CHESTER H. SWANSON, D/B/A SAVANSON'S
CHARLESTON DRUG,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
WALLACH THRIFTY DRUGS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS` BOARD
WEST BAY DRUG CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employees presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full rein-
statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle 4, Washington,
Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, Extension 553, if they have any ques-
tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America ; Local 182, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America (Dairymen 's League Cooperative
Association, Inc.) and Fairway Farms, Inc. and John Staryk
and William Staryk doing business under the trade name and
style of John and William Staryk Trucking Co. Case No. 3-CC-
175. March 20, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 8, 1962, 't'rial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents, Locals 584 and 182, had engaged in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent
Local 584 had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the
Charging Party, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and the General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
141 NLRB No. 56.