Walgreen Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1168 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mill now does only finishing operations on products knit and looped
on English Street and has approximately 40 employees. The full-
fashioned and seamless mill performs the entire operation of knitting,,
looping, and finishing of ladies' full-fashioned and seamless stock-
ings, with the exception of the dyeing process which is performed at
the mill on English. The stockings are trucked back ,and forth for
-this dyeing process. There are approximately 200 employees at this
mill.
On these facts we are satisfied that a unit limited to the employees
of the English Street mill would be inappropriate for collective-bar-
gaining purposes. Because of the centralized control over the gen-
eral conditions of employment -fleeting all employees of the Em-
ployer, the integrated operations of the plants involved, and the
similarity of skills and functions of all the employees, we find the
one-plant unit requested by the Petitioner inappropriate and dismiss
the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEaiBER MuRDOOK tpok no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Walgreen Company and Retail Clerks Union , Local No. 1460,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL, Petitioner. Case
No. 13RC-44126. November 17,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was' held before Jewel G. Maher, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The- labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exist's' concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates a chain of 389 retail drugstores in 38
States of the United States by means of an administrative'system com-
posed of geographical divisions, within which are -subdivisions known
i For reasons hereinafter set forth , we deny, the Employer's motion to dismiss the peti-
tion on the ground that the units alternatively sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate.
114 NLRB No. 17-4.
WALGREEN COMPANY 1169
as, districts. Of the 160 stores in the Employer's central division,2
119 are situated in its Chicago district which includes the metropoli-
tan Chicago counties' of Cook and Du- Page in Illinois; and Lake
County, in Indiana. Five of the Chicago 'district stores are situated
in Lake County.
Except with respect to the unit placement of bookkeepers, discussed
below, the Employer and the Petitioner agree that the alternative units
of store employees in the Chicago district which the Petitioner herein
seeks should include the following employee classifications : All regu-
lar and regular part-time employees, excluding store managers, phar-
macists, porters, employees currently otherwise represented, seasonal
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The main disagreement in this proceeding concerns the scope and
number of the units herein sought. The Petitioner contends, in the
alternative, that the store employees at the Employer's 5 Lake
County stores constitute the following appropriate units : (a) a single
multistore unit; (b) 5 separate appropriate storewide units; or (c)
3'separate, appropriate storewide units, comprising the 2 Gary stores,
the 2 Hammond stores, and the single East Chicago store, respec-
tively. The Employer, on the other hand, contends that a single dis-
trictwide unit comprising all of the 119 stores in the Chicago district
is.alone appropriate.
All of the stores in the Chicago district are under the ultimate super-
vision and control of the director of operations who is also responsible
for operations in the entire central division.' The director of opera-
tions manages the labor relations policies for the Chicago district
stores. Centralized control of the Chicago district stores emanates
from the district office in Chicago at which point maximum and min-
imum store prices and wage rates are established and basic nationwide
policies and programs for the entire chain, including hospitalization
and pension plans, are administered.' The Chicago district stores sup-
port advertising campaigns sponsored by the district office. Records
kept at this office include store leases, managers' salary records, Fed-
erallincome tax records, and copies of local store records.
On the,other hand, store managers appear to exercise a considerable
degree'of autonomy in the operation of individual stores in the Chicago
district: They: are primarily responsible for all phases of store opera-
tions; including the maintenance of their volume of business, inventory
control, supervision of store personnel, and the execution of company
,policies. They may hire, initiate and increase the wages of, promote,
and discharge store, employees. The personnel department at the
Chicago district office operates as a referral bureau in assisting the store
2 The epntral division includes all of the stores in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan , and Ohio
s Intermediate supervision , in descending order of responsibility , include regional drug
and fountain supervisors , district drug and district fountain supervisors , and store-
managers
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
managers to obtain new employees; the managers, however, have the
final authority to accept or reject applicants, whether or not hired
through the personnel department. Although all Chicago district
store employees work a 40-hour week, store managers establish store
working hours and vacation schedules, grant time off to employees, and
determine whether or not to operate on Sundays. Although, as I}oted
above, all store prices are established on a districtwide basis, in the 5
Lake County stores the store managers are authorized to alter prices
to meet local competition. Within prescribed limits, store managers
may use their own discretion in participating in local charities and
chamber of commerce functions. - Payrolls are prepared and payroll
and other records are kept in each store.4
In the Chicago district the Employer also operates a warehouse, a
commissary, and an ice cream plant. The service areas of these facili-
ties are not restricted to the Chicago district, but include other adjacent
areas as well, and depend to a large extent on variable factors such as
the perishability of the product they handle and the availability of
transportation facilities. Store managers requisition supplies from
these sources, but are at liberty to obtain them elsewhere whenever they
are not available at these sources.
There is no history of collective bargaining respecting the employees
herein sought. Under these circumstances, and in view of the high
degree of autonomy at each of the stores in the Chicago district and
the absence of a bargaining history on a broader basis, we find ap-
propriate separate storewide units at each of the Employer's Lake
County stores.5
The remaining issue concerns the unit placement of bookkeepers,
whom the Employer would exclude on the ground that they are confi-
dential employees. The bookkeepers handle ,a ,variety, of office rec-
ords, including timecards,,receiying reports,%employee schedules,iand
merchandise, sales, and advertising records. It does not appear,
however, that the bookkeepers assist or act in a confidential capacity
to any person who exercises managerial functions in the field of labor
relations. The mere fact that they have access to financial and busi-
ness data, work with costs records, or have access to secret business
information or personnel matters does not render them confidential
employees. Moreover, the Board has often held that there is no
incompatibility between the faithful performance of duty and the
enjoyment of benefits under the Act.6 Accordingly, we find that the
4 Store records include timecards and records, individual work records, employee
schedules, receiving reports, copies of invoices referred to the main office for approval,
store operating statements, merchandise schedules, inventory control records, price books,
copies of advertisements and proposed sales , State laws , personnel policies , and payrolls.
6 The United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corporation, 104 NLRB 409
6 E I Du Pont de Nemours and Company , Construction Division, Savannah River
Plant, 107 NLRB 734.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC. 1171
bookkeepers are not confidential employees , and we shall therefore in-
clude them in the unit which we herein find appropriate.
We find that all regular and regular part -time employees at each of
the Employer's five retail drugstores in Lake County, Indiana, includ-
ing bookkeepers , but excluding store managers , pharmacists, porters,
employees currently otherwise represented , seasonal employees , guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute separate units ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators & Paperhangers of America,
Carpet, Linoleum and Resilient Tile Layers Local Union No. 419,
AFL, and George Cooney , Business Agent and Charles Myers,
Jr., A. R . Mick , B. F. Car's , Art Cassias . Cases Nos. 30-CB-46,
30-CB-47, 30-CB-48, and 30-CB-49. November 18, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 18, 1955, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices,' and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ents and the General Counsel each filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent
with our decision herein.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that on or about October 11,
1954, the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) of the Act by causing the Company to lay off, on October
12, 1954, and later discharge, on or about October 15, 1954, the four
i As no exception was filed to the Trial Examiner's recommendation of dismissal as to
the allegation in the complaint with respect to the Union 's administration of its job-
referral program, we shall dismiss this allegation without further comment.
114 NLRB No. 175.
387644-56-vol 114-75