Rexall Drug Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of REXALL DRUG COMPANY, EMPLOYER and BINDERY
WOMEN'S ONION, LOCAL No. 56 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF BOOKBINDERS UNION, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1333.Decided April 01, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leo J. Halloran, 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 [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever from an established plant-wide bar-
gaining unit all women employees engaged in the printing, label in-
specting, and advertising department. United Gas, Coke and Chem-
ical Workers of America, Local No. 8, CIO, the Intervenor herein,
contends that the unit sought is inappropriate principally because the
employees petitioned for do not constitute a craft group nor a func-
tionally coherent departmental group such as may be severed from a
more inclusive, established bargaining unit. The Employer is neutral.
89 NLRB No. 91.
683
,684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer, at its Boston plant 1 which is involved herein, is en-
gaged in the sale ,and distribution of drugs, pharmaceuticals, medi-
cines, cosmetics, and toiletries. In connection with its operations the
Employer maintains a print shop, wherein the employees involved in
this proceeding work. Since 1937, the Intervenor has been recognized
.as the bargaining representative for a plant-wide unit of employees 2
including the employees involved herein, and has entered into suc-
^cessive yearly contracts with the Employer covering the employees it
represents.3 The last contract between the parties expired on March
1, 1950.
The employees in the proposed unit work in the print shop and base-
ment storage department, which is one of approximately nine depart-
ments covering the Employer's operations at its Boston plant. The
work of these employees consists of label inspecting (checking labels
for defects and errors), collating (sorting printed matter), assisting
male employees who operate the gluing machines and folding ma-
chines, wire stitching, and label cutting. The women need no par-
ticular qualifications or training to do any of the aforesaid jobs. It
is estimated that a woman can learn to do any one of the operations
in less than a month and can learn to perform all the operations pro-
ficiently within a period of 9 to 18 months. The Employer conducts
no apprenticeship program for the women employees in the print shop.
Furthermore, it appears from the record that all the women em-
ployees, whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, do not work together
but are scattered through the various buildings and floors occupied
by the print shop; that floormen, whom the Petitioner would exclude
from the unit, occasionally on night shifts, do some of the work reg-
ularly performed by the women, and generally do work which is re-
lated to the work done by the women; and that women in other
departments perform similar work and are frequently transferred
temporarily to the print shop to do the same work as is performed by
the women in the proposed unit.
Contrary to the contention of the Petitioner, we believe that the
work performed by these women is unskilled and that they are not
craftsmen. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to show that
1 There are approximately 750 persons employed in the plant and there are 22 women
included in the unit proposed by the Petitioner.
2 Excluded from the unit are office employees , professional employees , cafeteria employees,
employees who are members of the American Federation of Labor in the print shop, watch-
men and guards , and supervisors.
3 In 1943 , the Intervenor was certified as the bargaining representative for essentially
the same group of employees. See United Drug Company, 47 NLRB 1040 . ( Both the
Employer and the Intervenor have changed their names since said date.)
REXALL DRUG COMPANY 685
the women in the proposed unit have any special community of in-
terests apart from the other employees of the Employer. In view
of the foregoing, including the fact that there is a long history of
collective bargaining on a broader basis, we perceive no justification
for severing the employees in question from the existing bargaining
unit. Accordingly, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is
inappropriate and we shall therefore dismiss the petition .4
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
4 The Standard Register Company, 84 NLRB 039 ; Boorum & Pease Company, • 80 NLRB
1066.