The United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 409 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE UNITED CIGAR- WHELAN STORES CORPORATION 409
THE UNITED CIGAR-WHELAN STORES CORPORATION' and
RETAIL UNION OF NEW JERSEY, LOCAL 108, RETAIL,
WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 2-RC-5448, 2-RC-5449. 2-RC-5450,
and 2-RC-5478(4-RC-1872). April 27, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Leonard J. Lurie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
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 Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson la
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks 4 separate bargaining units com-
prised of soda sales employees, drug sales employees, cigar
sales employees, and porters employed at each of 4 stores of
the Employer in the State of New Jersey. In Case No. Z-RC-
5448 the Petitioner's request is for a unit of these employees
at the Employer's Elizabeth store; in Case No. 2-RC-5449 the
request is for a unit of employees at the Employer's Plainfield
store; in Case No. 2-RC-5450 the request is for a unit of em-
ployees at the Employer's Bayonne store ; in Case No. 2-RC-
5478 (4-RC-1872)2 the request is for a unit of employees at
the Employer's New Brunswick store. The Employer contends
that the only appropriate unit is one comprising all its stores
located in region 2, of which the 4 stores herein involved are a
part. There is no history of collective bargaining at any of
these 4 stores.
The Employer operates a nationwide chain of approximately
230 retail drug and cigar stores. It is organized for purposes
of administration, supervision, and operation into 5 regions,
with some regions being subdivided into districts. Region 1
covers New England and the State of New York; region 2 covers
all of the State of New Jersey with exception of Atlantic City;
region 3 covers Atlantic City, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Wash-
ington, D. C., and West Virginia; region 4 covers the State of
Florida; and region 5 covers the west coastarea. The 4 stores
involved in this proceeding, as indicated above, are located in
geographically separated communities in region 2.
1 The Employer ' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2Case No. 2-RC-5478 (4-RC-1872) was transferred, pursuant to Board order, from the
Fourth Region for purposes of the consolidated hearing conducted herein.
104 NLRB No 56.
41 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All of the Employer ' s stores in region 2 are under the direc-
tion and supervision of a regional manager who is responsible
for the operation of that region . The regional manager is
assisted by a district manager and by a soda supervisor. The
local stores, however , exercise a degree of local autonomy.
The local store managers order their supplies directly from
the Employer ' s warehouse in Brooklyn , New York, or from
suppliers approved by the Employer or by the regional man-
ager . Payroll data is submitted by local store managers to the
Employer's home office in New York , which in turn mails the
individual checks directly to the store managers. Local store
managers interview job applicants , hire soda fountain and part-
time employees , and recommend the hiring of other employees.
They also effectively recommend salary increases andpromo-
tions to the regional manager . Although full- time employees
work the same number of hours at all stores located within the
region, the hours that each store remains open vary , depending
upon the particular community. The local store managers
schedule the working hours for their employees . There is very
little interchange of employees between the stores.
As stated above , there is no history of collective bargaining
at any of the Employer ' s stores located within region 2. How-
ever, the Employer has bargaining contracts with unions other
than the Petitioner covering some of its stores located in other
regions , but these contracts follow no set pattern . Thus, in
region 1 there are separate contracts for drug store and cigar
store employees in New York City and Long Island embracing
three districts . The Employer has another contract that covers
part of a fourth district in region 1; the rest of the employees
in this region are unrepresented . In region 3 the Employer has
a contract that covers its stores in Philadelphia ; the employees
in other stores in this regionare unrepresented . In region 5 the
Employer has contracts covering its stores in Los Angeles; the
other stores in the region are unrepresented.
In view of the geographical separation of the stores in region
L, the lack of any substantial interchange of employees, the
existence of local autonomy, and because no labor organization
now seeks to represent these employees on other than a single-
store basis , we find that separate units of employees at each of
the four stores are appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.'
A question exists concerning the inclusion of soda fountain
managers and cigar managers in the units . The Employer
would apparently exclude soda fountain managers on the ground
that they are supervisors . The Petitioner is neutral. The
Petitioner , on the other hand, would include cigar managers,
with respect to whom the Employer does not appear to take any
position. ,
Soda fountain managers: They make purchases for the soda
fountains , train soda fountain personnel , and can effectively
recommend promotions , discipline , and discharge. The record
3 V J. Elmore 5; , 10S, and $1 00 Stores. Inc ., 99 NLRB 1505; The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company , 85 e'LRB 680.
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY 411
discloses that the soda fountain manager participates with the
store manager and assistant store manager , whom the parties
agree are supervisory personnel , in the Employer ' s store
bonus plan . We shall , therefore , exclude soda fountain managers
from the units as supervisory employees.
Cigar managers: They are responsible for the operation of
the cigar department in each store . They sell , maintain ade-
quate merchandise , and train the cigar clerk in their store.
There appears to be 1 cigar manager and 1 cigar clerk in each
store , who work on alternative shifts which usually overlap about
3 or 4 hours. In the absence of the cigar manager, the store
manager assigns any one of the other clerks to perform his
duties . The cigar managers do not participate in the store bonus
plan with the store manager , the assistant store manager, and
the soda fountain manager , who are supervisory personnel. As
the record does riot clearly establish that cigar managers are
supervisors as defined in the Act , we shall include them in the
units .
We find that the following employees of the Employer con-
stitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All
soda , drug , and cigar sales employees , porters , and cigar
managers , at each of the Employer ' s stores in Elizabeth,
Plainfield , Bayonne , and New Brunswick , New Jersey , but ex-
cluding registered pharmacists , store managers , assistant
store managers , soda fountain managers , and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
Next of Direction of Elections ' omitted from publication.,
4 The Regional Director for the Fourth Region is hereby authorized and directed to conduct
the election in Case No. 2-RC-5478 (4-RC-1872).
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY I and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCI-
ATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS, AFL; INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE & PAPER
MILL WORKERS, AFL, Joint Petitioners
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, Peti-
tioner. Cases Nos. 10 -RC-2199, 10-RC-2207, 10-RC-2208,
10-RC-2209, 10-RC-2210, 10-RC- 2217, and 10 -RC-2212.
April 27, 1953
DECISION , ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
t The names of the Employer and the Petitioner in Cases Nos. 10-RC-2207 to 10-RC-2210,
inclusive , and 10-RC-2217, appear as amended at the hearing.
104 NLRB No. 55.