Crown Drug Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1126 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
does not establish that machine setup men normally progress
to craft-machinist classifications. In these circumstances, we
find that the machine setup men are not entitled to sever from
the production unit, either as a separate unit or as an addition
to the existing craft-machinist unit.' We shall therefore dis-
miss the petition.
The Board dismissed the petition.]
5See American Potash & Chemical Corporation. 107 NLRB 1418. Also see Chicago Report
and Fire Brick Division of Laclede- Christy Company 99 NLRB 335, 336; Sunbeam Corporation,
89 NLRB 132-134.
CROWN DRUG COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION NO. 782, AFL,
Petitioner . Case No. 17-RC-1748. May 27, 1954
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 William J.
Cassidy , 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
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation 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 69 retail drugstores in Kansas,
Missouri , and Oklahoma . Thirty-one of these stores are
located within the greater Kansas City metropolitan area.
Included within this area are the cities of Kansas City, Missouri;
Kansas City , Kansas; Independence , Missouri ; North Kansas
City, Missouri ; Mission , Kansas; Fairway, Kansas; and Over-
land Park, Kansas . The Petitioner seeks to represent employees
of all the stores located in the greater Kansas City metropolitan
area as defined above plus employees in the Employer's Rx
prescription center located in Kansas City, Missouri. The
Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one including
employees of all its stores.
The Employer' s operations are centralized to an extremely
high degree . The central office in Kansas City , Missouri, sets
the policy for all stores as to store operating hours , number of
employees each store may have working at any given time,
wages and salaries of all personnel , hiring and discharge of
I
108 NLRB No. 142.
CROWN DRUG COMPANY 1127
personnel , vacations , leaves of absence , sick leave , and group
insurance . The payroll for each store is made up in the central
office and the central office pays all bills and invoices. The
store managers are given almost no discretion in applying the
policies laid down by the central office . For administrative
reasons the Employer has divided its stores into five divisions.
Each division is headed by a supervisor, who oversees the
operations of the stores and determines that the stores are
being operated according to the policies set by the central
office . The Petitioner ' s unit request includes all stores within
the divisions I and II plus the Rx prescription center which is
not included in any of the divisions.
From the foregoing it is clear that an Employerwide unit
as contended for by the Employer would be appropriate. How-
ever , the factors relating to the integration of the Employer's
operations are not, alone , determinative of the question. The
stores designated by the Petitioner as constituting an appro-
priate unit include all of the Employer' s stores within a distinct
metropolitan geographical area . And though these stores
comprise 2 administrative divisions rather than being confined
to 1, the record indicates that in some respects there is a
closer community of interest between employees in these
2 divisions than there is between the employees of either
division I or II and the employees of the other divisions. There
is substantially greater amount of interchange of employees
between divisions I and II thanbetween either of these divisions
and the other divisions . Also the relief employees may be
called for duty in stores in either division I or II but not for
duty in other divisions . These factors , together with the simi-
larity in community of interests of these employees, obtaining
from the social and economic integration of alarge metropoli-
tan area in which they work indicate the appropriateness of
the unit sought by the Petitioner.'
The parties are in agreement as to the inclusions and ex-
clusions in the unit except as to part -time employees and
relief employees . The Employer employs approximately 67
part -time employees , 56 of whom regularly work more than
9 hours a week and 11 of whom regularly work less than 9
hours a week . The Petitioner would exclude those regular
part-time employees who work less than 9 hours a week. The
Employer would include all regular part-time employees.
The Employer maintains a pool of approximately 25 to 30
people who are approved for "relief" employment. These
people are called when the need arises . They are at complete
liberty to decline any particular call without forfeiting their
'See L. Wiemann Company, 106 NLRB 1167; The Great Altantic and Pacific Tea Company,
99 NLRB 1500; cf. C. Pappas Company, Inc., 80 NLRB 1272, in which the Board found a pro-
posed unit to be inappropriate , because the stores sought to be included "do not fall into any
distinguishable geographic area. ...nor does it appear that the Employer operates on a
district or area system, but rather that all of its "operations are conducted as an integrated
whole. .. .
1 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
approved status for further assignments . The Petitioner would
exclude these employees and the Employer would include
them. As the Board's unit findings are based upon functionally
related occupational categories , and as the record indicates
that all regular part-time employees and the relief employees
perform work similar in nature to that performed by the full-
time employees, we shall include them in the unit hereinafter
found appropriate.'
Accordingly, we find that all employees, employed in the
Employer's stores within the Employer's divisions I and II,
located within the greater Kansas City metropolitan area, as
set forth above, including pharmacists, fountain employees,
regular part-time employees, relief employees, and employees
in the Rx prescription center located at 3100 Troost, Kansas
City, Missouri , but excluding porters , guards , store manager,
assistant store managers , fountain managers , employees of
all other company divisions , and supervisors as defined in
the Act, may constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
However, the unit as set forth above includes professional
employees' and we must ascertain the desires of the profes-
sional employees to see whether they desire to be represented
for purposes of collective bargaining in a unit which also in-
cludes nonprofessional employees. We shall therefore direct
separate elections in the following voting groups: (a) All em-
ployees included in the unit as set forth above except phar-
macists; and (b) all professional employees (pharmacists).
The employees in voting group (a) will be polled to determine
whether or not they wish Petitioner to represent them. The
employees in voting group (b) will be asked two questions on
their ballot: (1) Do you desire the professional employees to
be included with the nonprofessional employees in a unit of all
employees employed in the Employer's division I and II stores
located in the greater Kansas City metropolitan area, including
pharmacists, fountain employees, regular part-time employees,
relief employees, and employees employed in the Rxprescrip-
tion center, but excluding porters, guards, managers, assistant
managers, employees of all other divisions, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, for the purposes of collective bargaining?
(2) Do you desire to be represented for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining by Petitioner?* If a majority of the pro-
fessional employees in the voting group (b)vote yes to the first
Z L. Wiemann Company, 106 NLRB 1167; The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 99
NLRB 1500, 1504.
3The Petitioner took the position that the pharmacists are professional employees and that
it is willing to represent them in a separate unit if they so desire. The Employer's position
was not stated for the record. It is apparent that these employees perform duties normally
performed by registered pharmacists. The board has found that registered pharmacists are
professional employees and we find that these employees are professional employees. See
Sam's, Inc., 78 NLRB 826, 829.
PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1129
question, indicating their desire to be included in a unit with
the nonprofessional employees, they will be included in such
unit, which, in that event, we find to be appropriate. Their votes
on the second question will then be counted together with the
votes of the nonprofessional voting group ( a) to decide the
question of representation for the whole unit . If, on the other
hand , a majority of the professional employees in voting
group ( b) vote against inclusion , we find separate units of
professional employees , and nonprofessional employees to be
appropriate . The votes of each voting group will then be sep-
arately counted to decide whether or not that group desires
to be represented by Petitioner.
5. Eligibility of part-time employees and relief employees
to vote.
As the record indicates that the only difference between the
working conditions of the regular part-time employees and the
full-time employees is the number of hours they are regularly
scheduled to work, we find that they are all eligible to vote
irrespective of the number of hours they are scheduled to
work.4 The relief employees comprise a pool of approved em-
ployees who may be called by the store manager upon authori-
zation of the central office, to replace sick employees or
employees absent for other reasons . These employees are not
required to accept employment when offered in order to remain
on the approved list. The Employer indicated that some of
these employees work quite often whereas others work only
infrequently, and suggested that those relief employees who
have worked on 4 or more days during the month preceding the
notice of election be permitted to vote . The Petitioner contends
that none of the relief employees should be permitted to vote.
We do not believe the record contains sufficient information for
an intelligent resolution of this issue, and shall permit the
relief employees to vote subject to challenge by either party.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
4Crosley Broadcasting of Atlanta, Inc., 107 NLRB 13; Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc., 99
NLRB 422.
PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION and TEXTILE WORK-
ERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-
RC-3761. May 27, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles
Y. Latimer, hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings
108 NLRB No. 161.