Globe Discount City

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 22, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 213 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GLOBE DISCOUNT CITY 213
Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc. d/b/a Globe Discount
City i and Retail Clerks International Association,
Local 1691, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
15-RC-5207
February 22, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On September 19, 1973 , the Regional Director for
Region 15 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found that a joint employer relationship exists
between Globe and its licensees Zale and Meldisco
with respect to Globe 's Baton Rouge , Louisiana,
discount store operations here involved, and he
found appropriate a unit of all selling and nonselling
employees of Globe and Zale , excluding , inter alia,
the employees of Meldisco , contrary to the Petition-
er's request . In accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8 , as amended , the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
decision on the grounds, inter aha, that in making the
above findings he departed from officially reported
Board precedent.
The Board , by telegraphic order dated October 11,
1973, granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending decision on review . Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed a Motion to Conduct Election and
Impound Ballots. On October 31, 1973 , the Board
granted the motion and ordered the Regional
Director to proceed with the election previously
directed , permitting the employees of Zale and
Meldisco to cast challenged ballots , and to impound
all ballots pending decision on review . Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the Petitioner's brief on review , and makes
the following findings:
The Employer contends that the Regional Direc-
tor, in finding a joint employer relationship herein
between Globe and its licensees Zale and Meldisco,2
1 As found below, the Employer (hereinafter sometimes referred to as
Globe), at the facilities involved herein, is alomt employer with its licensees
Zale-Service Louisiana , Inc, and Meldisco, Division of Melville Shoe
Corporation (hereafter referred to as Zale and Meldisco , respectively).
2 At its Baton Rouge discount store Globe itself operates departments
for the sale of drugs, software, hardware, and sundry items The drug
department employees classified as pharmacists and pharmacist interns are
departed from Disco Fair Stores, Inc., et al, 189
NLRB 456. However, we have examined the provi-
sions of the license agreements between Globe and
its licensees Zale and Meldisco and are satisfied that
they are similar in all material respects to the license
agreements between Globe and its licensees in United
Mercantile, Incorporated, d/b/a Globe Discount City,
171 NLRB 830. The Employer's reliance on Disco
Fair therefore is misplaced, as the Board in that case
specifically distinguished United Mercantile factually,
on the basis that the authority there retained by
Globe in the license agreements with regard to labor
relations matters affecting its licensees was sufficient
to create a joint employer relationship. Accordingly,
we affirm the Regional Director's joint employer
finding herein.
The Employer contends that if, as we have found, a
joint employer relationship exists, the Regional
Director was in error in finding that Meldisco's lease
department employees may not be included in the
requested unit at Globe's Baton Rouge store. We
agree.
The Regional Director noted that Meldisco has
approximately 600 stores nationwide grouped into
the "K-Mart Stores Division" and an "all other
division." The latter is subdivided into four districts,
one of which is the "Globe District," comprised of.
Meldisco lease department employees at four of
Globe's stores : at that here involved, at two in
Shreveport, Louisiana, and at one in McAllen, Texas.
Each of these four Meldisco stores has a department
manager, an assistant department manager, and one
full-time or two part-time "stock employees." All
these employees are under the direct supervision and
control of the district manager who visits each store
at least once every 2 weeks, spending about 2 days on
each such visit. The Regional Director found that the
duties of the store employees, including the depart-
ment manager, are routine and repetitious in nature.
He also found that Meldisco operations nationwide
are integrated, and labor relations and personnel
policies uniform and centralized; that wage rate
ranges are uniform for the four Globe District stores;
and that during the past year 12 district employees
were permanently transferred from one store to
another within the district.
The Regional Director, relying on the integration
of Meldisco's facilities nationwide and the lack of
local autonomy at the store level, concluded, in
accord with Meldisco's position, that the Meldisco
currently represented by another labor organization . Zale operates the
jewelry department ; Meldisco the shoe department . The automotive
department . operated by Uniroyal Merchandising Company, is housed in a
separate building, and the parties agree that its employees should be
excluded from the unit herein . The grocery department is operated by Baton
Rouge Discount, Inc., d/b/a Hinky Dinky, and its employees are currently
represented by the Petitioner.
209 NLRB No. 22
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lease department employees at Baton Rouge may not
be included in the requested unit at that location.
However, he failed to consider other factors which,
in our opinion, militate in favor of their inclusion in
the Baton Rouge unit sought by the Petitioner. Thus,
of prime significance is the fact that a joint employer
relationship exists, as above found, between Globe
and licensee Meldisco at the Baton Rouge store and
that Globe under the lease agreement retains
authority to control aspects of Meldisco's labor
relations policies, especially as they affect other store
employees.3 Moreover, although the Meldisco em-
ployees in question clearly have interests in common
with their counterparts at other Meldisco stores,
particularly those sharing the same supervision with
them in the Globe District,4 we note that their work
location is geographically separate from other Mel-
disco facilities (the next closest Globe District store is
about 200 miles away), and they work in the same
building as other requested employees and share
common working conditions with them such as
parking facilities, restrooms, telephone switchboard,
PA system, and merchandise checkout procedures.
In the circumstances, we find that the Meldisco
employees share a substantial community of interest
with selling and nonselling employees of Globe and
Zale at Globe's Baton Rouge store and that a unit
combining such employees, as requested by the
Petitioner, is appropriate.-5
We therefore find that the following employees
constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of
3 Such control is evidenced by the provisions of the license agreement
which give Globe the power to discharge employees of Meldisco's lease
department and to put into effect unilaterally , at any time during the times
of the agreement , rules and regulations pertaining to sales, operational,
merchandising and pricing practices.
4 As noted below , we do not resolve here the question whether the
department manager of Meldisco's Baton Rouge operation participates in
the supervision of employees in his department but permit him to vote
subject to challenge
5 See Bargain Town USA. of Puerto Rico, Inc, 162 NLRB 1145. There,
as in Frostco Super Save Stores, Inc, 138 NLRB 125, cited by the Regional
Director, the Board , while finding that requested discount store units
excluding one or more lease or licensed departments were appropriate (on
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and all regular part-time selling
and nonselling retail store employees of the
Employer at its retail operation known as Globe
Shopping City at 5905 Florida Boulevard, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, including employees of the
license departments operating under license
agreements with Zale-Service Louisiana, Inc., and
Meldisco, Division of Melville Shoe Corporation;
excluding employees of Uniroyal Merchandising
Company, Inc.: employees of Baton Rouge
Discount, Inc., d/b/a Hinky Dinky; pharmacists
and pharmacist interns; the Globe store manager,
hard line manager, soft line manager, inventory
control manager, office manager, drug depart-
ment manager, appliance department manager,
Sun Room manager, camera department manag-
er, and management trainees; the Zale Service
Louisiana, Inc., store manager; seasonal and
temporary employees, office clerical employees,
store dectectives and guards, and supervisiors as
defined in the Act.6
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the
Regional Director in order that he may open and
count the ballots impounded by our Order dated
October 31, 1973, including the challenged ballots
cast by employees of the Zale and Meldisco lease
departments, pursuant to our Decision on Review,
and take such further steps as he deems necessary in
accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations.
the basis of facts demonstrating that the employees in the excluded
departments shared separate and distinct interests ), also found that a
broader unit including employees of such departments might also be
appropriate
6 Although the Regional Director found that Meldisco's Globe District
manager exercised immediate supervision and control over all district
employees, he made no specific finding as to whether or not the department
manager in Meldisco's Baton Rouge operation was a supervisor as defined
in the Act in view of his exclusion of the entire department However,
inasmuch as the department manager is the only representative of Meldisco
at that location and the record in our view is insufficient to enable us to
determine his status , we shall permit him to vote subject to challenge.