Adams Drug Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 68 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Adams Drug Co., Inc. and Local 1325 , Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO. Case
1-CA-6084
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
April 26, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On March 4, 1968, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision and a supporting brief, the Charging
Party filed exceptions to which the Respondent
filed a reply brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions' of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Adams Drug Co., Inc.,
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
' The Charging Party has filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's failure
to recommend that the Respondent be ordered to make the employees
whole for losses they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's un-
lawful refusal to bargain , and to his failure to order restoration of all condi-
tions of employment unilaterally changed in any way detrimental to the
employees since the Board's certification We deem it inappropriate in this
case to depart from our existing policy with respect to remedial orders in
cases involving violations of Section 8 (a)(5) As there is no allegation in
the complaint herein and no evidence in the record that the Respondent
made unilateral changes, we deny the Charging Party's request for such re-
lief
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to
charges filed on September 20, 1967, by Local
1325, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, a
complaint was issued on October 5, 1967. The
complaint alleges that following certification of the
Union pursuant to a representation election con-
ducted in Case 1-RC-8949, the Respondent since
September 19, 1967, has refused to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the unit of all employees of Respondent's
retail drugstores located in the State of Rhode
Island found appropriate in the representation
proceeding. In its answer, Respondent denies that
the unit in which the election was conducted was
an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining . Respondent contends further that the
Decision on Review and Direction of Election of
the Board in 164 NLRB 594, reversing the Decision
and Order of the Regional Director dismissing the
petition, was improper because the request for
review was not based on any of the grounds set
forth in the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, Section 107.67(c), because the
Board's Decision failed to set forth any change in
standards in determining the appropriateness of the
unit, and because the Board's determination of the
appropriate unit was arbitrary and capricious.
Respondent further alleges that the Board had im-
properly dismissed without a hearing Objections to
Conduct Affecting Results of Election based on
conduct which interfered with a fair election and
constituted grounds for setting aside the election on
which the Union's certification was based. Respon-
dent denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
On October 18, 1967, counsel for the General
Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on
the ground that there were no issues of fact requir-
ing a hearing in this case because the issues raised
by Respondent in its answer had been fully litigated
in the representation proceeding and could not be
relitigated in this proceeding.
In response to an Order To Show Cause, Respon-
dent opposed summary judgment on the ground
that there was newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence concerning the matters raised
in the representation proceeding in that the Board
in its Decision in the representation case errone-
ously found that all but one store of the Employer
located in the State of Rhode Island were in the
Providence-Pawtucket-Warwick metropolitan area
as defined in Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, 1946 edition, as amended May 24, 1926,
Bureau of the Budget, and Respondent was unable
to obtain a copy of the document on which the
Board relied. Respondent also alleged that in its
171 NLRB No. 13
ADAMS DRUG CO.
Decision in finding the statewide unit appropriate
the Board erroneously relied on a contention of the
Charging Party in the representation case, sup-
ported by an inaccurate citation, that the State of
Rhode Island regulates almost every phase of drug-
store operations within its jurisdiction. Finally,
Respondent argued that Respondent was not af-
forded a hearing on its objections to the election in
the representation proceeding and would be
foreclosed from a hearing on its objections at any
time if summary judgment were granted. Respon-
dent also amended its answer to allege that the
Board's Decision in the representation proceeding
erroneously found that all the stores included in the
appropriate unit were in the metropolitan area
described above, with the exception of one located
near its borderline.
On December 22, 1967, Trial Examiner Sidney
Lindner denied the Motion for Summary Judgment
and scheduled a hearing to determine the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. The hear-
ing was held before me in Boston, Massachusetts,
on January 29, 1968. At the close of the hearing
oral argument was waived and the parties were
given leave to file briefs which have been received
from all the parties.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent' is a Rhode Island corporation with
its principal place of business located in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island. At all times material herein it has
been engaged in the retail sale of drug products at a
number of retail drugstores located in the States of
Connecticut, Kansas , New York, Massachusetts,
Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. During the calendar
year 1966, a representative period, in the course of
its business , Respondent sold and distributed drug
products from which it derived a gross revenue in
excess of $500,000. During the same period
Respondent purchased and received goods, materi-
als, and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which
were transported directly across state lines. I find
that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that asser-
tion of jurisdiction herein is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 1325, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
69
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
In its representation petition, the Union sought
an election among the employees of all Respon-
dent's retail drugstores in the State of Rhode Island.
A hearing on the petition was held on May 11 and
26, 1966. Thereafter, on June 16, 1966, the Re-
gional Director issued a Decision and Order
dismissing the petition on the ground that the unit
sought was too narrow in scope to be appropriate.
Thereafter, pursuant to the Union's request the
Board granted review and reversed the Regional
Director's action, finding the requested unit ap-
propriate. Adams Drug Co., Inc., 164 NLRB 594.
As set forth in the Board's Decision, the Peti-
tioner relied principally on the fact that the State of
Rhode Island regulated almost every phase of drug-
store operations within its jurisdiction, and on other
evidence that the employees within the State shared
a community of interest.
The facts on which the Board acted are fully set
forth in its Decision on Review. In its Decision, is-
sued on May 12, 1967, the Board found that
Respondent operated either directly or through
wholly owned subsidiaries a chain of 83 drugstores
in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Kansas,
and Oklahoma. Its central office and warehouse
were in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Twenty-five of
the stores were in Rhode Island, all of which were
in the Providence-Pawtucket-Warwick metropoli-
tan area as described in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, 1964 edition, as amended May 24,
1966, published by the Office of Statistical Stand-
ards, Bureau of the Budget, with one of them, Re-
spondent's Wakefield store, "virtually on the
boundary line of the area." As the Board also noted,
Respondent has 12 stores in Massachusetts, of
which 1, its store in Attleboro, was in the same
metropolitan area as the Rhode Island stores and 5
miles distant from the nearest Rhode Island store.
Of the Massachusetts stores, two in Fall River and
one in Somerset, 8 miles from the Rhode Island
line, were in a separate Fall River metropolitan
area. Respondent also had seven stores in Con-
necticut, the nearest of which was 50 miles from the
Rhode Island stores. Twenty-four stores were in
New York.
The Board also found that Respondent's records
and payroll were centrally maintained and
prepared. Much of the merchandise for the stores
came from the central warehouse. Each store had a
separate manager who reported to one of seven
area supervisors, three of whom serviced the stores
in the New England States. The stores serviced by
each area supervisor did not fall into a distinct geo-
graphic pattern, but were assigned to them on the
' Respondent 's name appears in the caption as amended at the hearing
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
basis of other factors. A single cosmetic supervisor
assisted the store managers of all the New England
stores. On these facts the Board concluded that the
Rhode Island stores did not comprise an adminis-
trative subdivision of Respondent's chain of stores.
The Board found further in its Decision that
there was uniform or centrally controlled pricing
policy, advertising, hours, operating policy, starting
wages, special bonuses, and insurance benefits and
some centrally controlled hiring.' The Board found
also that store managers directed day-to-day store
operations, pursuant to centrally established policy,
determined the number of employees in their
stores, hired sales clerks, and recommended
promotions. Area supervisors visited the stores in-
frequently. Stockmen and pharmacists, who were
centrally hired, were interchanged or transferred
from store to store on occasion, but store clerks
hired by store managers were rarely interchanged.
On the basis of these findings as set forth in its
Decision, the Board concluded:
From the foregoing, it is evident that there
are a number of factors indicating, as con-
tended by the Employer, that the store em-
ployees involved could be bargained for on the
basis of an employerwide or New England
States areawide unit. Indeed, the facts support
a grouping of stores within the Providence-
Pawtucket-Warwick metropolitan area as an
appropriate unit, and such a grouping would
require the addition of only the Attleboro store
to the Petitioner's proposed unit. However, in
the absence of any history of collective bar-
gaining , where no labor organization is seeking
a broader appropriate unit, the Board has long
held that the petitioning labor organization
needs only to establish that the group of em-
ployees it has attempted to organize and seeks
to represent is "an " appropriate unit.10
Here, the Petitioner has restricted its interest
to a Rhode Island State grouping of the Em-
ployer's drugstore employees. The facts set
forth above clearly demonstrate that the
requested employees have substantial interests
in common, notwithstanding the fact that they
do not fall within a distinct administrative sub-
division of the Employer's multistate opera-
tions. Although it is true that employees at
stores outside the State share some of these in-
terests, we are persuaded that the employees in
the Rhode Island stores enjoy a special com-
munity of interest apart from the others by
reason of the State 's regulation of the retail
drug industry. The Board has stated in cases
arising in the insurance industry that groupings
of district offices within a State may constitute
appropriate geographic area units ." We be-
lieve the same considerations apply to retail
drug chains. The State of Rhode Island, under
its police power, can and does regulate phar-
macies and the sale and distribution of phar-
maceutical , cosmetic, food, and other products
within its political boundaries. This control by
the State also affects the terms and conditions
of employment of all employees in the drug-
stores.12 We conclude, therefore, that all drug-
stores of the Employer within the boundaries
of the State of Rhode Island constitute a
clearly delimited geographic area appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining.
On June 9 and 10, 1967, the election was held
resulting in a vote of 137 for the Union and 105
against, with 26 challenged ballots. On June 16,
1967, the Respondent filed timely objections to the
election alleging that the Union had falsely
represented to employees that all union members
were covered by a health and welfare plan which
was mailed to the employees; that the employees
could enjoy membership in the Union, including
the health and welfare benefits and all the ad-
vantages of union membership, without cost to
them until the Union obtained them a wage in-
crease in an amount greater than union dues; and
that all employees represented by the Union
received 10 paid holidays a year and 6 weeks' full
pay for sick leave.
After an investigation, on July 18, 1967, the Act-
ing Regional Director issued his Decision on Ob'ec-
tions and Certification of Representatives finding
that statements of the Union of which Respondent
complained did not constitute an improper offer of
benefits suggesting disparity of treatment based
upon how employees voted, and did not involve a
substantial departure from the truth such as would
warrant setting aside the election.4
Thereafter Respondent requested the Board to
review the Decision on Objections and Certification
of Representative. On September 13, 1967, the
Board denied Respondent's request for review.
B. The Complaint Proceeding
In its answer, Respondent admits that the Union
has requested Respondent to bargain collectively
' Vacation policy was found to be uniform for all Rhode Island stores and
five of the Massachusetts stores
10 See Davis Cafeteria, Inc., and Polly Davis Broward Cafeteria, Inc ,
160 NLRB 1141
" See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 158
NLRB 925; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 156 NLRB 1408,
1417; ibid, 43 NLRB 962,968
IS Without attempting to detail the extent of this control, we note
that the State of Rhode Island has on its statute books laws governing
the licensing of pharmacies and of pharmacists , and laws pertaining to
health and safety in the operation of pharmacies and the sale and dis-
tribution of pharmaceutical , cosmetic, food , and other products
dispensed by drugstores within the State. The State of Rhode Island
also imposes sales and payroll taxes and has other laws setting forth
minimum standards for health and safety in employment.
1 Citing Gilmore Industries , Inc, 140 NLRB 100
Citing Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc , 140 NLRB 221
ADAMS DRUG CO. 71
with respect to the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of the employees in the unit found ap-
propriate by the Board since September 11, 1967,
and that since September 19, 1967, Respondent has
refused to do so. Therefore, unless one of Respon-
dent's defenses attacking the validity of the certifi-
cation has been sustained, it would follow that the
violation alleged in the complaint has been
established.
It is well settled that absent newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, the appropriate-
ness of a bargaining unit or of a Board certification
will not be relitigated in a subsequent unfair labor
practice proceeding.' Application of this principle
requires rejection of Respondent's efforts in this
proceeding to relitigate the issues raised by its ob-
jections to the election as well as its claims that the
Union's request for review of the initial dismissal of
the petition was not based on any of the grounds set
forth in Section 102.67(c) of the Board's Rules and
Regulations and that the Board's Decision on
Review was otherwise defective on its face.
There remains for consideration Respondent's
contention that newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence establishes that the unit in
which the election was conducted is not ap-
propriate.
The evidence introduced by Respondent at the
hearing shows that after the hearing in the
representation case and while the Decision was
pending before the Board on review, Respondent
added two additional drugstores in Rhode Island to
its chain. One, located in Middletown, Rhode
Island , opened in November 1966, and the other,
located in Westerly, Rhode Island, opened in
December 1966. These stores employed approxi-
mately 12 and 8 employees, respectively, at the
time of the election. Neither is located in the
Providence-Pawtucket-Warwick metropolitan area,
as described in the Standard Metropolitan Statisti-
cal Areas publication cited by the Board in its deci-
sion in the representation case . The Middletown
store is located in Newport County about 9 miles
south and slightly west of Respondent's Tiverton
store and about 8 miles south of Respondent's
Bristol store .6 The Westerly store is located in
Washington County about 15 miles west of Respon-
dent's Wakefield store. The named stores are the
closest of Respondent's stores in Rhode Island to
the Middletown and Westerly stores. The em-
ployees at the Middletown and Westerly stores
voted in the representation election. The Wakefield
store which was in existence at the time of the elec-
tion is about 12 miles south of Respondent's next
nearest store at North Kingstown. It employed ap-
proximately 12 employees at the time of the elec-
tion. Wakefield is about 1 mile and 5 miles from
the boundaries of Naragansett and North Kings-
town, both of which are in the Providence-Paw-
tucket-Warwick metropolitan area.'
In opposing summary judgment Respondent con-
tended that the Board erroneously stated and relied
on the fact that all but one store of the Employer
located in the State of Rhode Island were in the
Providence-Pawtucket-Warwick metropolitan area
because the Board included three stores in Rhode
Island outside that area while at the same time ex-
cluding the Attleboro, Massachusetts, store which
is in that area.
The evidence before me does not sustain the
claim of error. The Middletown and Westerly stores
were not in existence at the time of the representa-
tion case hearing. Although they were in existence
at the time of the Board's Decision, there is no
evidence that any effort was made to bring the ex-
istence of these stores to the Board's attention dur-
ing the period of approximately 6 months which
elapsed between the opening of the second of these
stores and issuance of the Board's representation
Decision, or indeed until after issuance of the com-
plaint herein.8 Whether or not the Bureau of the
Budget publication, a copy of which Respondent
was unable to obtain after the Board's Decision,
constitutes newly discovered or previously unavail-
able evidence, a matter as to which I entertain
substantial doubt but find it unnecessary to de-
cide, Respondent must have been aware of the
opening of its two new stores and their locations in
Rhode Island at the time of the event. In these cir-
cumstances , as the Board acted on the record be-
fore it in the representation case, it cannot be
deemed to have acted erroneously because of its
lack of knowledge of facts that were not before it,
and Respondents attempt to upset the Board's unit
determination on the basis of these additional facts
may well come too late.9
However, assuming arguendo that changed cir-
cumstances since the representation hearing are
' Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B, 313 U S. 146, S D War-
ren Company, 150 NLRB 288 , enfd 353 F 2d 494 (C.A I), cert denied
383 U.S 958; Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno, 167 NLRB 397
The Tiverton store was opened after the representation election and
appears to be about 2 miles outside the Providence -Pawtucket-Warwick
metropolitan area. The Bristol store opened shortly after the election and is
in the described metropolitan area Middletown is located on an island but
is connected to the mainland near Bristol and Tiverton by bridges
' These and other distances not specifically established by testimony at
the hearing are based on the Rhode Island highway map received in
evidence on which the testimony of Respondent 's witness was also based
" I note in this regard that consideration of metropolitan areas was in-
troduced into the representation case by the contention in Respondent's
memorandum brief to the Regional Director, a copy of which was attached
to its statement in opposition to Petitioner 's request for review, that
It would appear, therefore, that under the latest Board decisions, the
only geographical unit based upon this record which might be ap-
propriate and which is of a lesser scope than the three-state unit and at
the same time covers some Rhode Island stores , is a Metropolitan
Providence unit of the stores of the Employer This certainly would in-
clude some , if not all, of the stores in southeastern Massachusetts, such
as in Attleboro , Taunton , and Fall River, but presumably would not
encompass some stores of the Employer in Rhode Island, such as those
located in Wakefield , North Kingstown , and Woonsocket
No authority was cited by Respondent in support of its contention as to the
boundaries of Metropolitan Providence.
"See Red-More Corporation, dlbla Disco Fair, 169 N LRB 426 S S.
Kresge Company, 169 NLRB 442.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
properly before me, I shall consider their impact on
the Board's unit determination, bearing in mind
that the burden is on Respondent to establish that
the circumstances upon which the underlying deci-
sion was based no longer exist.10
Reading the Board's Decision in the light of
Respondent's contention in the representation
proceeding (quoted in fn. 8, above) that a
Metropolitan Providence unit might be appropriate
rather than the statewide unit sought by Petitioner,
I cannot construe as essential to the Board's deci-
sion its finding in the representation case that all
the stores sought were in or on the border of the
Providence-Pawtucket-Warwick metropolitan area.
Rather it appears that these findings relate to the
contention that a metropolitan area unit including
some Rhode Island and some Massachusetts stores
was the only possible appropriate unit smaller than
a broad multistate unit. After defining the
metropolitan area and observing that the facts
would support a grouping of the stores in the
metropolitan area, which would require the addi-
tion of only a single store to those sought by Peti-
tioners, the Board rejected such a unit as the only
appropriate unit on the record before it and found
that a statewide unit was also an appropriate unit.
In reaching this conclusion while the Board did not
have its attention called to the opening of the
Westerly and Middletown stores, at the same time
the Board must have been aware of the mention at
several places in the representation record of the
opening of new stores and of the possibility that
new stores in Rhode Island would not necessarily
be confined to the Providence-Pawtucket-Warwick
metropolitan area. What the Board found signifi-
cantly distinguished all the Rhode Island employees
from Respondent's other employees and gave them
a special community of interest apart from em-
ployees outside the State of Rhode Island was "the
State's regulation of the retail drug industry."" Ac-
cordingly, I conclude that the Board found the
statewide unit appropriate despite the fact that all
Respondent's Rhode Island stores identified on the
record before it were in the same metropolitan area
rather than because of that fact.
Respondent also attacks the Board's finding as to
state regulation of the retail drug industry before
me on the grounds that it was based on a conten-
tion of Petitioner supported only by a meaninglessly
ambiguous citation to Rhode Island statutes, the
Board's decision was unsupported by any citation
to Rhode Island statutes, and the Board's findings
are without support. I am satisfied, however, that
further consideration of this issue by me is
precluded as it was previously litigated.
At the representation case hearing some
evidence was elicited as to state regulation of phar-
macies. At pages 6 and 7 of Petitioner's request for
review of the Regional Director's dismissal of the
representation petition, Petitioner set forth its con-
tention that state regulation of the retail drug in-
dustry supported a finding that a statewide unit is
an appropriate unit if not necessarily the only ap-
propriate unit, citing "e ;g. Chapter 19, Rhode
Island General Laws, Section 5-19-2." At page 2
of its statement in opposition to Petitioner's request
for review, Respondent attacked Petitioner's cita-
tion as meaningless and took issue with Petitioner's
contention.
It is clear from the above that that issue was
joined in the representation proceeding as to the
nature of state regulation of retail drugstores and
its impact upon determination of the appropriate-
ness of the unit sought by the Petitioner. 2 Ac-
cordingly, I find that Respondent's contentions in
this proceeding relating to state regulation of the
retail drug business raise nothing which was not or
could not have been presented to the Board in the
representation proceeding.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent has
failed to establish any changed circumstances suffi-
cient to warrant rejection of the Board's unit find-
ing in the representation case. Therefore, as the
Board found in the representation case, I find that
the following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
ployed at the Respondents drugstores located in
the State of Rhode Island, including post office sub-
station employees, but excluding pharmacists, store
managers any assistant managers , guards , and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
As set forth above, the Union has been certified
as representative of the employees in the above-
described unit, and since September 19, 1967,
Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union
at its request for these employees. Accordingly, I
conclude that Respondent has refused to bargain
with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with its
operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to
10 S S Kresge Company, supra.
"The common interests of the Rhode Island employees otherwise,
which the Board found were not shared exclusively by Rhode Island em-
ployees, have not been shown to be any different for the Westerly and
Middletown employees than for those in Respondent 's other Rhode Island
stores
14 Although Petitioner 's citation to Rhode Island statutes may have been
less precise than possible , the reference to section 5- 19-2 would appear
sufficient to have directed attention to the title and chapter to which Peti-
tioner referred.
ADAMS DRUG CO. 73
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices violative of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce or operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Charging Party is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time employees
of Respondent employed at its drugstores located in
the State of Rhode Island, including post office sub-
station employees, but excluding pharmacists, store
managers and assistant managers , guards, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since July 18, 1967, the Charging
Party has been, and now is, the exclusive represent-
ative of the employees in the said unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on and since September 19, 1967,
to bargain collectively with the Charging Party as
the representative of the employees in the above
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
gain collectively on behalf of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
above-named Union as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit, and em-
body in a signed agreement any understanding
reached.
(b) Post at its retail drugstores in the State of
Rhode Island, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix. "13 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith. 4
13 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision
and Order "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the
Respondent, Adams Drug Co., Inc., Pawtucket,
Rhode Island, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith
concerning rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment with
Local 1325, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit described in
paragraph 3 of the section of this Decision entitled
`Conclusions of Law."
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with the efforts of the above-named Union to bar-
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Local 1325, Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO , as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain collectively on behalf of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL , upon request , bargain with the
above-named Union as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of all the employees in the
bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay , wages , hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment,
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and, if an understanding is reached , embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
All full-time and regular part -time em-
ployees at our drugstores located in the
State of Rhode Island, including post of-
fice substation employees, but excluding
pharmacists , store managers and assistant
managers , guards , and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
ADAMS DRUG CO., INC.
(Employer)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Build-
ing, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston,
Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 233-3300.