Walgreen Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Walgreen Co. and Retail Clerks' Union, Local 1532,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO.
Cases 20-CA-7576, 20-CA-7689, and 20-RC-
10688
September 24, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND KENNEDY
On April 24, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
George H. O'Brien issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision and cross-ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Union, the
Charging Party, filed cross-exceptions and a support-
ing brief.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by various acts of interrogation, promises of
benefits, threats, acts of reprisal, and creating the im-
pression of surveillance, as fully described in the at
tached Decision. We also agree that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by its discharge of
Debra O'Neil on August 4, 1972. We further agree
that the Union represented a majority of Respon-
i The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to certain credi-
bility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's
established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions
with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby de-
med as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties.
We hereby correct an inadvertent error in the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision : in sec. III, E, 6, the year " 1951" should be "1971."
2 The Union requests in its cross-exceptions that the Order provide that
Respondent be ordered to pay to the Board and the Union the costs and
expenses incurred by each in the investigation , preparation , presentation, and
conduct of this case as provided in Tiidee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234, and
196 NLRB 158 . We do not find sufficient evidence to support a finding that
Respondent's defenses constituted frivolous litigation within the meaning of
Tiidee Products and, accordingly, deny the Union's request Cf. John Singer,
Inc., 197 NLRB 158
dent's employees in an appropriate collective-bar-
gaining unit at all relevant times and that the totality
and the severity of Respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices require,a Gissel bargaining order .3 Contrary to
the Administrative Law Judge, however, for the rea-
sons discussed below , we disagree with his dismissal
of the 8(a)(1) allegations regarding certain statements
made by Respondent's store manager, Thornton,
within the 10(b) period to Warren Whitney, a hus-
band of an employee.
Since Warren Whitney was not an employee of Re-
spondent, the Administrative Law Judge, relying on
Joseph C. Asher d/b/a The Meat Cleaver, 200 NLRB
No. 130, found that no statement made by Thornton
to Whitney could support any 8(a)(1) allegations of
the complaint . We find The Meat Cleaver case inappo-
site, in that the individuals therein involved , unlike
Whitney , were strangers to the employment situation
and the conversations involved therein were not coer-
cive . In the instant case, however , Warren Whitney
was the husband of Judith Ann Whitney, the cosmeti-
cian at the Respondent's store and whom the Respon-
dent suspected was falsely giving the impression she
was against the Union . Here the record shows that the
Respondent deliberately attempted to use Warren
Whitney as a conduit to the employees and fully in-
tended and could reasonably expect Whitney to influ-
ence his wife and other employees.4
The record shows that near the end of April 1972,
after the Respondent received a copy of the Union's
representation petition , Thornton met Whitney at a
restaurant in the shopping plaza. In the conversation
initiated by Whitney, Store Manager Thornton asked
Whitney who started the organizational campaign
and if he knew who was in favor of the Union , specifi-
cally inquiring about certain employees. Thornton
told Whitney that the Respondent would never let
their stores go union and would never sign a contract.
Thornton also said if the Union won the 1971 election
the store would have closed . He further told Whitney
to keep his ears open and to report anything he heard.
One week later , when Whitney was picking up a
3 N.LR.B v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc, 395 U.S. 575 (1969).
An election was held on June 14, 1972, in which the tally of ballots showed
in Voting Group A (professional) the only eligible employee (Levin) voted
to be included in the single unit with nonprofessional employees in Voting
Group B, and of the 21 votes cast, 9 were for , and 8 against the Union. Four
ballots were challenged. On October 2, 1972, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued his report overruling the challenge to one ballot and sustain-
ing the challenges to three ballots . No exceptions were filed to the Regional
Director 's report and his recommendations were adopted by the Board on
October 19, 1972. However, a revised tally of ballots was not issued at that
time. On August 13, 1973, the Board issued an order to the Regional Director
to open and count the challenged ballot. The unresolved challenged ballot
was subsequently opened and a revised tally of ballots issued showing that
nine ballots were cast for, and nine ballots were cast against , the Union.
4 Cf. Redwing Carriers, Inc, 125 NLRB 322, 323, enfd. in relevant part 284
F.2d 397 (C.A. 5, 1960); Owego Street Supermarkets, 159 NLRB 1735, 1737;
Chesterfield Chrome Co., 203 NLRB No. 15.
206 NLRB No. 15
WALGREEN CO.
prescription at the store's pharmacy, Thornton told
Whitney that "you will. have to get another job for
your wife, because if the store goes union she won't
be working here any more." Thornton again told
Whitney that the store would not sign a contract and
the Union would have to go on strike. Near the end
of April 1972, Thornton told Whitney that Respon-
dent was working on sick leave, improved hospitaliza-
tion, and improved profit sharing, but Respondent
could not put such benefits into effect while the
Union was in the picture. In other conversations pre-
ceding the election, Thornton again told Whitney that
the Respondent would never, sign a contract and that
he was not worried about the election since he could
bring in certain individuals to work and thereby flood
the vote. Thornton also told Whitney that if he found
out that people were for the Union he could make it
rough for them by staying on their backs, causing
them to make mistakes in making change, and that
this would be a way of dismissing them.
In these circumstances we find that, in the above
conversations and discussions with Warren Whitney,
Respondent engaged in interrogations, threats of re-
fusal- to bargain, of store closure, and of reprisal
against employees, promises of benefit, and surveil-
lance, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, the Conclusions of Law, the Order, and the
notice to employees has been revised and amended to
reflect the above conduct found violative of the Act .5
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Conclusion of Law 7 in the attached Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision is renumbered 8 and the
following Conclusion of Law 7 is added:
"7. By coercively interrogating Warren Whitney,
by threatening him that the store would close if the
Union were successful and that the Respondent
would not bargain with the Union, by informing him
of reprisals to be made against employees who sup-
ported the Union, by promising fringe benefits to its
employees if the Union is out of the picture, and by
requesting him to engage in surveillance, Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Walgreen,
Company, Petaluma , California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth
125
in the said recommended Order, as modified herein:
1. Insert the following as 1(d) and reletter the re-
maiming paragraphs accordingly:
"(d) Coercively interrogating the spouses of em-
ployees concerning the union activities of employees;
requesting such individuals.to spy on the union activi-
ties of employees; threatening individuals with store
closure, refusal to bargain, and reprisal against em-
ployees if the Union is successful; and promising ben-
efits if the Union is out of the picture."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
5 The Charging Party and the counsel for the General Counsel excepted
to the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to make certain additional
findings of illegal conduct which they contend are supported by the record.
In view of the fact that such findings would be cumulative and would merely
add to the magnitude of Respondent's illegal conduct and give additional
support for a Grssel bargaining remedy, we find it unnecessary to, and do not,
pass on these exceptions.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after a trial, that we violated Federal law by question-
ing employees about their union activities, by promis-
ing benefits to induce employees to refrain from
union activities, by threatening reprisals against em-
ployees, and by discharging an employee for engaging
in union activities:
WE WILL offer full reinstatement to Debra
O'Neil and pay her for the earnings she lost as a
result of her August 4, 1972, discharge plus 6-
percent interest.
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against
any employee for supporting Retail Clerks'
Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our em-
ployees, nor spy on their union activities, nor
promise benefits to them for the purpose of influ-
encing their union activities or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT refuse to sign a collective-bar-
gaining agreement, nor close the Petaluma store,
nor deny promotions to employees, nor assign
undesirable work to employees as punishment
for engaging in union or other concerted activi-
ties protected by the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully question the spouses
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees concerning the union activities of
our employees; request such individuals to spy
on our employees; threaten such individuals that
the Petaluma store will close, that we will refuse
to bargain with the Union, and that we will take
reprisals against union adherents if the Union is
successful; and promise various fringe benefits if
the Union is out of the picture.
WE WILL bargain collectively on request with
Retail Clerks' Union, Local 1532 as the exclusive
representative of all regular full-time and part-
time employees in our Petaluma store, with re-
spect to wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment and, if an agreement
is reached, we will sign it.
WALGREEN CO.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must'remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 13018 Federal Building, Box 36047,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California
94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.
DECISION
AND
REPORT AS TO DISPOSITION OF OBJECTIONS
TO CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULT OF THE
ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN, Administrative Law Judge: This con-
solidated proceeding was heard at San Francisco, Califor-
nia, on November 28 through December ) 1, and on
December 6 and 7, 1972.1 In this Decision and Report,
Walgreen Co. is called Respondent and Retail Clerks
Union, Local 1532, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, is called the Union. The consolidated complaint
issued October 2, 1972, is based on a charge filed by the
Union on June 22, 1972, as: amended on September 21,
1972, and on a charge filed by the Union on August 9, 1972.
The complaint alleges in substance that Respondent, by
discharging an employee, by coercive interrogation, by
1 A preheating conference was conducted by Administrative Law Judge
Herman Marx on November 15, 1972.
threats of detriment, and by promises of benefit, violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
By an order of consolidation issued October 2, 1972, certain
objections by the Union to conduct of Respondent affecting
the results of an election held June 14, 1972, were placed in
issue.2
Upon the entire record 3 in the proceeding, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, both on and
off the stand, and after giving due consideration to the
posthearing brief s,4 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Illinois corporation with over 500 stores
in over 200 cities in 36 States and Puerto Rico. It has about
28,000 employees. Its retail sales in 1971 were $817,486,642.
At its drug and sundries store in Petaluma, California, its
annual gross revenue exceeds $500,000 and it annually re-
ceives, in Petaluma, merchandise valued in excess of
$50,000 which originates at points located outside the State
of California. Respondent is an employer within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
THE CONDUCT ALLEGED TO HAVE AFFECTED
THE RESULT OF ELECTION
A. The Issues in Case 20-RC--10668
On April 14, 1972, the Union filed a petition for certifica-
tion of representatives. Pursuant to a stipulation for certifi-
cation upon consent election, executed May 10, 1972, an
election was conducted on June 14, 1972, in a storewide
unit, excluding only the manager, James Thornton, and the
assistant manager, Philip Johnson. The pharmacist, Levin,
was provided with a special ballot 5 with two questions:
2 The order of consolidation also placed in issue one objection by Respon-
dent to conduct of the Union affecting the results of the same election. This
objection was withdrawn by counsel for Respondent on November 28, 1972.
The General Counsel's posthearing motion to correct errors in the steno-
graphic transcript is granted.
4 Briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Union
direct my attention to "incredible" portions of the testimony of Respondent's
witnesses . The brief filed by counsel for Respondent directs my attention to
incredible portions of the testimony of General Counsel 's witnesses. I find
myself in substantial agreement, on these points , with all three of these very
able advocates . As the hearing developed , I received the distinct impression
that all witnesses , with the exceptions of Wessels, Johnson, Rogan, and
Hotehng had been programmed before taking the stand, and were simply
responding to cues provided by their direct interrogators.
The separate,ballot was required by the following section of the National
Labor Relations Act:
Sec. 9 (b) ... Provided that the Board shall not (1 ) decide that any
unit is appropriate [for the purposes of collective bargaining ] if such unit
includes both professional employees and employees who are not pro-
WALGREEN CO. 127
1. Do you desire to be included with non -professional
employees in a single unit for purposes of collective
bargaining?
2. Do you wish to be represented by Retail Clerks
union, Local 1532, RCIA, AFL-CIO?
The payroll period for eligibility was the 2-week period
ending Friday, April 28, 1972, and there were 24 names,
including Levin's, on the Excelsior list. Hara and Morgan
had quit their employment before the date of the election
and did not vote. Linda Dodd, whose name was carried on
Respondent's payroll at least through June 23, but who had
not worked since March 17, may or may not have voted.
Twenty-one ballots were cast. The ballots of Brandner,
Green, Claude Thornton, and June Thornton were chal-
lenged by the Union's observer and impounded. Levin vot-
ed "yes" on both questions on his ballot. The tally of ballots
served on the parties at the close of the election showed:
Approximate number of eligible voters-21
Votes cast for Petitioner-9
Votes cast against participating labor organizations-8
Challenged ballots-4
Timely objections were filed by both Respondent and
Union.
In his Report on Challenged Ballots and Objections is-
sued October 2, 1972, the Regional Director found that the
challenges to the ballots of Green and of June and Claude
(Stan) Thornton should be sustained and that the challenge
to the ballot of Brandner should be overruled. He further
found that Respondent's Objection III and Union's Objec-
tions 2 through 11 raised issues 'of fact which should be
resolved through a hearing, and that Brandner's ballot
should remain impounded pending the result of such hear-
ing. No exceptions were filed to the Director's report and
his recommendations were adopted by the Board on Octo-
ber 19, 1972. The objections remaining in issue before me
are:
2. Walgreen Co. told employees that it would defeat
petitioner by having friends and relatives of the store
manager vote in the election.
3. Walgreen Co. has unlawfully interrogated employ-
ees about their and other employees Union member-
ship, Union activities and Union sympathies.
4. Walgreen Co. has unlawfully granted pay raises and
other improved conditions of employment to employ-
ees and has unlawfully promised to grant pay raises
and other improved conditions of employment to em-
ployees.
5. Walgreen Co. has told employees it knows which of
them support Petitioner and has engaged in surveil-
lance of the employees' Union activities and has creat-
ed the impression of such surveillance.
fessional employees unless a majority of such professional employees
vote for inclusion in such unit... .
6. Walgreen Co. has told employees not to cooperate
with the National Labor Relations Board in the investi-
gation of any cases filed against Walgreen Co. by Peti-
tioner.
7. Walgreen Co. has told employees that Walgreen's
would never permit the employees to select Petitioner
as their bargaining agent; that Walgreen's would close
its Petaluma store before it would recognize Petitioner;
that employees would lose their jobs because of the
Union activity; that if Petitioner won the election, there
would be a strike and Walgreen's would bring in scab
labor and that Walgreen's would never sign a contract.
8. Walgreen Co. has asked employees to report the
Union activities of other employees to the Company.
9. Walgreen Co. threatened employees that if they se-
lected Petitioner in the NLRB election, they would
never get jobs in the Petaluma area.
10. Walgreen Co. threatened that they could retaliate
against the employees for engaging in Union activity
by changing their work schedules and conditions of
work.
11. Walgreen Co. threatened employees that if they
selected Petitioner to represent them, their jobs would
be in jeopardy, that Walgreen Co. would find ways to
discharge employees because of their Union activity,
and that Walgreen would transfer employees to other
locations because of their Union activity.
B. The Issues in Case 20-CA-7576
The complaint in summary alleges and the answer denies
that Store Manager James Thornton, on specified dates
between and including April 15, 1972, and June 7, 1972:
interrogated employees, promised wage increases, stated
that Respondent would never sign a contract, threatened
employees with layoffs and replacement, threatened to im-
pose worse hours and working conditions, predicted that the
store would close, threatened to deny promotions, promised
improved medical and dental plans, engaged in surveillance
of employees at a nearby coffee shop, created the impres-
sion of surveillance, stated that Respondent would never let
the store go union, threatened to force employees to resign,
and threatened employees,,with blacklisting.
The complaint further alleges and the answer denies that
Respondent's director of employee relations, R. H. Wes-
sels, on May 10, 1972, announced that Respondent would
never let the store go union, threatened employees with
layoffs and replacement, and threatened that Respondent
would close the Petaluma store if the employees selected the
Union to represent them.
The complaint further alleges and the answer denies that
Assistant Manager Philip Johnson, between May 26 and
June 16, 1972, interrogated employees, threatened that the
store would close, and created the impression of surveil-
lance.
The complaint further alleges and the answer denies that
Respondent on June 14, 1972, promulgated and enforced
more onerous hours and working conditions against em-
ployees in reprisal for their membership in or activities on
behalf of the Union.
The complaint concludes with a prayer that Respondent
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be ordered to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all of its Petaluma store employ-
ees, including pharmacists, and excluding the manager and
the assistant manager. This poses two additional issues: (1)
whether the Union at any material time represented an
uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees in any ap-
propriate unit and (2) whether Respondent has committed
unfair labor practices which undermined the Union's ma-
jority, and whether the possibility of erasing the effects of
past practices and ensuring a fair rerun of the election by
traditional remedies is slight, so that employee sentiment,
once expressed on cards, would, on balance, be better pro-
tected by a bargaining order.'
C. The Issue in Case 20-CA-7689
Whether James Thornton, when he discharged Debra
O'Neil on Friday, August 4, 1972, was motivated by the
intent to discourage membership in the Union.
D. The Setting
On February 8, 1970, Respondent's Petaluma store
opened for business . It is located in a modem shopping
plaza adjacent to an area which is rapidly changing from
agricultural to residential. Its first manager, Petty, told his
then second assistant, Philip Johnson, that the store was set
up for the future, because of the new homes that were going
to be built in the area, that it was expected to lose money
for about 5 years, but would be established and "get most
all of the business" of the new residents.
On November 20, 1970, the Union by letter, requested
recognition as the representative of all employees, excluding
only the store manager. A Board-conducted election was
held, pursuant to stipulation, on January 20, 1971. The two
pharmacists, then employed, voted to be included in a bar-
gaining unit with clerks and in favor of union representa-
tion. Two clerks voted for the Union and seven clerks voted
against union representation.
On February 1, 1971, the Union, by letter, demanded
recognition as bargaining agent of the two pharmacists in
a professional unit. Upon Respondent's refusal to recognize
the Union, a charge was filed, a complaint issued alleging
refusal to bargain, and a trial was held before Administra-
tive Law Judge James R. Hemingway on August 31, 1971.
In his October 13, 1971, Decision dismissing the com-
plaint, Administrative Law Judge Hemingway states:
... Respondent's second argument ... rests .. .
upon the ground that the pharmacists had not, since
the election, indicated that they wished to be repre-
sented in a unit by themselves . Here, in a self-determi-
nation election, the pharmacists, by choosing to be in
a unit with non-professional employees , had voted not
to be represented in a unit by themselves ....
6 Paraphrased from N.L.RB. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575
(1969).
On the facts of this case, there is absolutely no way
g whether the pharmacists would have cho-of knowin
sen the Union to represent them separately in a unit
limited to professionals... .
I conclude and find that the General Counsel has not
proved that the pharmacists had chosen the Union to
represent them in a unit limited to pharmacists and that
Respondent has not refused to bargain with the Union
in violation of the Act.
The Union took immediate steps to remedy the deficien-
cy by obtaining affidavits and new authorization cards from
the pharmacists and filing a motion with the Board to sup-
plement , the record by this newly created evidence. The
Board , in its Decision and Order (195 NLRB 405) adopting
the Decision of Administrative Law Judge Hemingway, de-
nied the Union's motion to supplement the record.
Following the issuance of Administrative Law Judge
Hemingway's Decision , Respondent took immediate steps
to ensure that it would not be required to recognize the
Union in a professional unit. On November 11, James
Thornton, a registered pharmacist, replaced Petty as man-
ager of the Petaluma store , and one pharmacist , Bill Spater,
was transferred to Respondent 's store in Stonestown. This
left only-one employee, Levin, in the professional unit, and
the Board cannot issue a certification in a one-man unit.
Cutter Laboratories, 116 NLRB 260.
The Petaluma store is a modern self-service establishment
with a great variety of merchandise on its open shelves.-It
is open for business from 10 a .m. to 7 p .m. on 6 weekdays
and from 10 a .m. to 6 p .m. on Sunday. The pharmacy is
located in an enclosed area in the rear of the store, and a,
registered pharmacist must be on duty during all hours
when the store is open . The open office, in the spring of
1972, was located in the front of the store between the liquor
counter and the number I checkout cashier.
E. The Witnesses
1. Richard H. Wessels
Wessels is an attorney-at-law and director of employee
relations for Respondent. His office is in Chicago. His pri-
mary responsibilities are negotiating labor contracts, direct-
ing Walgreen's responses to union organizing campaigns,
and handling National Labor Relations Board proceedings.
When petitions are filed by labor organizations, Wessels is.
responsible for demonstrating to employees the disadvan-
tages of union representation. Wessels testified with regard
to the Petaluma store:
I handled the first organizing situation which was back
in the fall of 1970, about November of 1970, and then
on through to the present date. I have been completely
in charge.
In early January 1972, all the store managers in
Respondent's western district met at the district office in
San Francisco to hear a promotional pitch from representa-
WALGREEN CO. 129
tives of Max Factor. Wessels took this occasion to give a
2-hour lecture on the subject of union organizing campaigns
and the responsibilities and limitations of store managers in
connection therewith. At this meeting, he distributed a
booklet, referred to in this record as the "dos and don'ts
book."
On either Tuesday, April 18, or Wednesday, April 19,
1972, upon receiving in the mail a copy of the Union's
petition, Wessels telephoned Thornton, told him to follow
the "dos and don'ts book" and to post the notice which
Wessels was mailing to him. The notice, dated April 19,
1972, from J. R. Saunders, district manager of
Respondent's California east district, and T. L. Hankinson,
district manager of Respondent's California west district,
recites:
We learned over the weekend that the Retail Clerks
Union is trying again to bring you into the ranks of
DUES PAYING MEMBERS.
This will mean that we will be having another union
election sometime in the near future . The two of us and
Mr. Thornton have faith and confidence in all of you
that you will AGAIN REJECT this takeover attempt
and tell these paid organizers that you don't wish to
HIRE them!!'!
It is our hope that we can soon get this ordeal behind
us and get on with our objective of making our Petalu-
ma store the VERY BEST store in California East and
California West Districts.
the reading of the dos and don'ts book?" Wessels testified:
... nothing was said, about reading it. I certainly
didn't intend that the booklet be read. This is the worst
way to conduct a union campaign. . . . I used kind of
memory pegs in filling in management people on the
disadvantages of having a union represent them and I
always outline five things generally that they should
talk about and I instructed, particularly Mr. Thornton
that he should talk to employees about these things.
Number one, that you've got an outsider that comes
in to become your voice, that we're always available to
listen to problems, and I have them write down in the
booklet opposite one of the points, the word "outsid-
er."
Opposite another one I have them write the word
"listen." The company is always willing to listen to
grievances, to problems.
I have them write down the word, "dues" for the fact
that if the union represented them they would have to
pay union dues.
I have them write down the word "benefit," to ex-
plain to the employees that the company already has a
benefit structure.
And I have them write down the word "strike." That
the union's weapon at the bargaining table is to ,strike
and that there's always the possibility that one would
be called and that they would have to serve on the
picket line.
On Tuesday, May 9, 1972, Wessels spent 4 hours in con-
ferences with Thornton and with Assistant Manager John-
son at a restaurant in the shopping plaza discussing the "dos
and don'ts book," and what Respondent would need for a
campaign. The "dos and don'ts book" is directed to supervi-
sors and labeled in bold letters, "CONFIDENTIAL." It
recites:
While your company is responsible under the law for
every remark or opinion you make or give to an em-
ployee, the manager has every right and obligation to
express opinions and views relative to union matters so
long as rules prohibiting threats, promises of benefits
and interrogation are not violated. In fact, the Compa-
ny depends on you to convey to the employees the
Company's position on union matters and labor ques-
tions.
The booklet then lists 12 things which "you as a manager
can do" and 15 things which you "cannot do." The booklet
is an excellent summary, in less than 1,500 words of the
rights and limitations of management in a union organizing
campaign.
Wessels told Thornton that he was "primarily responsi-
ble" and should, between then and whatever date was set
for the election, `stalk to each employee ... ,and let them
know some of the disadvantages of having a union represent
you. When asked by his cocounsel, Mr. Ames, "What, if
any, instructions did you give to Mr. Thornton regarding
At 6 p.m. on May 9, Wessels and Thornton returned to
the store and Thornton relieved Levin in the prescription
department. While Levin was changing clothes, he and
Wessels had a private argument.
On May 10, Wessels met with union representatives at the
Board's office in San Francisco and signed the Stipulation
for Certification Upon Consent Election. That afternoon he
prepared a notice to be signed by Thornton and posted in
the employees' breakroom in the store, advising employees
of the date of the election and of the fact that Respondent
was required by law to give the Union their names and their
home addresses, and stating:
....Remember that you are free to forbid any union
representative from entering your home if you so de-
sire . The law protects you in this respect, and the
Union's paid organizers have no right to enter your
homes. If you have any problems in this regard or are
intimidated in any way, let me know and we will do
everything possible to protect your rights.
Wessels then returned to Chicago where he prepared the
literature to be used in the campaign. He delivered these
papers in person to the district manager in San Francisco
on May 25, with specific instructions as to the date and
method of distribution of each of seven communications.
Some were to be mailed, others distributed by hand, and
others posted. On May 26, he saw Thornton at the store and
gave him the literature which he was to distribute. Wessels'
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instructions were followed to the letter. No statement in any
of his propaganda is demonstrably untrue, and none ex-
ceeds the limits of Section 8(c) of the Act.
The final act in Wessels ' campaign was a gathering at a
fine restaurant after closing hours on June 13, election eve.
Attendance was voluntary. Eligible voters, wives, husbands,
and their guests were welcome . Sandwiches , coffee , and soft
drinks were provided. Short talks were given by
Respondent's vice president, Canning, by its division man-
ager from Denver, by the two district managers, and by
Wessels and Thornton. None exceeded the permissive limits
of Section 8(c) of the Act.
Wessels remained in Petaluma on the day of the election,
June 14. Immediately after the vote was announced Thorn-
ton said that he wanted to make , some changes in the sched-
ule (which had remained substantially unchanged for many
months). Wessels told him it would "look like hell," but
Thornton was the manager and Wessels could not run his
store for him.
Wessels, Thornton, and Assistant Manager Philip John-
son then conferred in an attempt to determine which clerks
had voted for the Union and which had voted for Walgreen.
Wessels testified from memory, with the "Excelsior list" in
his hand that they determined that eight of the following
named clerks had voted for the Company: Richard Rogan,
William Coberly, Melanie Davis, John Holstein, Linda
Dodd, Linda Duncan, R. Celani, L. Poole, and Mark Sage.
2. James Thornton
Thornton was first employed by Respondent as a porter
in its Klamath , Oregon , store while still in high school. He
attended college and pharmacy school on Walgreen schol-
arships, receiving his professional degree in 1953. After
working as a pharmacist in Walgreen stores in Redwood
City, Stonestown , and Santa Monica , he was promoted to
manager of the Walgreen store in Oakland in 1957. Thereaf-
ter, he managed in succession Respondent's stores in Palo
Alto, Stonestown, Millbrae, Hayward, and Petaluma. On
September 18, 1972, at his own request, he was relieved of
managerial responsibilities and transferred to Respondent's
Daly City store where he is presently employed as a phar-
macist.
Between November 1971 and April 1972, Thornton had
several conversations with Warren Whitney, Judith Whit-
ney, and Audrey Milligan. From April 15, 1972, through
June 14, 1972, pursuant to his understanding of the "dos
and don 'ts book" and Wessels' instructions , he had numer-
ous private conversations with individual employees. He
showed the "dos and don'ts book" to some of these and read
portions of it to others.
On the afternoon of Wednesday, June 14, he instructed
Johnson to make radical changes in the work schedule for
the following weeks. Levin was to work every weekend,
.alternate Saturdays and Sundays . Milligan was to be re-
placed as bookkeeper by Duncan and assigned to work the
cigar counter and checkout stand on the night shift. The
shifts of the cosmeticians were to be reversed, Judith Whit-
ney to work the night shift, and Ginger Johnson, who had
always worked nights , would work days. Although Philip
Johnson protested that the "timing was wrong" and "it
looks bad," he followed orders and the new schedule was
posted Thursday morning, June 15.
3. Philip Johnson
Johnson was hired as an assistant manager on April 10,
1970. He was an eligible voter in the January 20, 1971,
election. Between November 1971 and August 18, 1972,
when he resigned voluntarily, Johnson was clearly a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act. Johnson prepared and
posted the schedule of days and hours which each employee
was required to work. On one occasion, he noted that Wil-
liam Coberly had been credited on the payroll with hours
when he had not been scheduled and which Johnson knew
he had not worked. When he called this to Thornton' s atten-
tion he was told that Coberly was doing a good job manag-
ing the liquor department that he deserved more than the
$2 per hour, which was his rate of pay, and that it was the
manager's prerogative to give him extra hours.
Shortly before April 15, 1972, Thornton told Johnson that
"the union was going to be activated." Shortly after Thorn-
ton received a copy of the Union's petition he told Johnson
that he thought the Union would get only one vote in the
election, and that would be Debra O'Neil's. Johnson re-
sponded that he was wrong, that Robert Levin and Audrey
Milligan would also vote for the Union.
After the petition was filed, Johnson and Thornton spec-
ulated as to why the Union was starting over again. They
concluded that the initiative had not come from any em-
ployee, but that some union official, checking back records,
"found 12 possibles and he decided to go ahead and get
them all. If he got one, he was happy. If he didn't, well there
was no loss."
Johnson testified that Thornton "remarked hundreds of
times how he thought this was the best crew to every indi-
vidual in the store."
Thornton also told Johnson that the Union's promise of
"job security" gave some employees the idea that "they have
their jobs forever, whether they work or not" and that sim-
ply was not true. Thornton had managed union stores and
had fired union people. An employee could always be dis-
missed for refusal to follow orders.
The way the store was arranged, it was possible for a
person in the office to carry on a conversation in normal
tones with the person at the number one checkstand. On one
occasion, Johnson overheard a portion of Thornton's re-
marks to O'Neil while Thornton was in the office and
O'Neil was putting out cigarettes. Thornton told O'Neil
that he's worked with unions before and that whatever
schedule was posted, they had to work, and if they
didn't work it, it was reason for dismissal.
4. Audrey Milligan
Mrs. Milligan is Respondent's bookkeeper in Petaluma.
She was hired January 22, 1970, 2 weeks before the store
opened. She was the Union's observer at the January 20,
1971, and at the June 14, 1972, elections. When Wessels
visited the store on May 26, 1972, she asked him about her
chances of becoming a travelling auditor for Respondent
WALGREEN CO.
and Wessels replied that her chances were excellent. She
also complained that she was being harassed by Thornton
on the subject of the Union. Wessels answered that Thorn-
ton "was taking this union thing personally" and was "quite
emotional and doesn't mean a lot of these things." Wessels
also, commented that Milligan was emotional and some-
times that caused personality conflicts. On May 30, Wessels
wrote a personal and confidential letter to Milligan:
Dear Audrey, -
On the plane back, to Chicago last Friday, I gave con-
siderable thought to our discussion in the store Friday
morning. You can be certain, Audrey that you are
NOT going to lose your job so long as you continue to
do what is expected of you. Mr. Hankinson and before
him Mr. Saunders, are deeply committed to the Wal-
green principle of fair, decent and respectful treatment
of Walgreen employees. I know that Mr. Thornton
feels the same way.
In keeping with your request that our conversation be
held in strictest confidence, I have not discussed this
matter with Mr. Thornton or with anyone else. Howev-
er, I cannot emphasize too much the fact that you need
not have concern about your job or your future with
Walgreens so long as you continue to do well in your
job.
When, after the election, she was transferred from book-
keeping to the cigar counter and relief cashiering, she tele-
phoned Wessels. On Saturday, June 17, she was back at her
bookkeeper's desk and was still there at the time of this
hearing.
Milligan's rate of pay,.$3.45 per hour, was higher than the
rate of any regularly employed clerk, and was exceeded only
by Levin's $7.25 and, presumably, Philip Johnson's and
Thornton's.1
5. Judith Ann Whitney
Mrs. Whitney was hired February 9, 1970. She went on
authorized leave of absence on June 27, 1972, and did not
return. She was the cosmetician and received commissions
on sales of certain franchise items in addition to her hourly
pay of $3.125. Her scheduled hours were 10 a.m. to 6:30
p.m., Monday through Friday. Shortly after Thornton be-
came manager, she told him that she was responsible for the
defeat of the Union in the 1971 election. In her conversa-
tions with Thornton, she made it plain that she was procom-
pany and antiunion. On June 5, 1972, when Saunders was
at the store distributing one of Wessels' messages, she re-
quested and was granted a leave of absence to begin Sat-
urday, June 24.
7 Employees were paid biweekly by checks mailed from Chicago on the
basis of payroll reports prepared by Milligan and signed by Milligan and
Thornton. Reports covering the period from November 15, 1971, through
June 23, 1972, were received in evidence. Although the column showing the
hourly rate of each employee had been removed from the documents before
they were offered in evidence, the report for the period ending December 10,
1971, shows the dollar amount each employee received for attending a 2-hour
store meeting conducted by Thornton.
131
When she came to work Thursday, June 15, Thornton
directed her attention to the new schedule, on which she was
placed on the night shift, and asked what her last day would
be. She answered, "Friday, June 23." Thornton did not hear
the "June 23," and, assuming that she intended to begin her
leave the next day, said, "Hell, it just looks like you stayed
for the vote, and that was it." As she approached the cos-
metic counter, she saw a Linda Rogan, whose name does
not appear on any payroll, counting out her cash. She asked
Thornton where she was to work, and he said, " in cosmet-
ics." She went back of the counter, and Linda Rogan left.
A few minutes later Philip Johnson asked her when she was
quitting. She started to cry. Johnson took her to the break-
room, and then to a bakery in the shopping plaza and told
her she should take the rest of the day off.
Thornton telephoned the district office and announced
that Whitney had quit. Milligan telephoned Whitney and
told her of Thornton's call. Whitney telephoned the union
business agent, Marjorie Bridge. On Friday, April 16, Whit-
ney clocked in at 10 a.m. and went to work. Thornton called
her to the breakroom and, with Rogan as witnesses, told her,
to turn in her badge and leave the store . She again tele-
phoned Bridge. Bridge called the Union's attorney, Barry
Jellison. Jellison called Wessels. Wessels called Hankinson.
Hankinson called Thornton. Thornton called Judy Whit-
ney, apologized for the "misunderstanding" and asked her
to come right in to work because he "needed her desperate-
ly." Whitney continued to work the day shift without fur-
ther incident through Tuesday, June 27.
6. Warren Whitney
Judith Whitney's- husband, Warren, is a union carpenter,
and was a regular customer of the Petaluma store. Between
November 1971 and April 1972, he had frequent conversa-
tions with Thornton, in some of which the Union was one
subject of discussion. Whitney made plain to Thornton his
dissatisfaction with his own union, and particularly with its
leadership. He told Thornton that his wife had been respon-
sible for the defeat of the Union in the January 1971 elec-
tion. His testimony as to conversations before April 15,
1972, was received as "background" and evidence of mo-
tive. His testimony as to conversations on and following
April 15 was offered in support of specific paragraphs of the
complaint.
Warren Whitney was not an employee of Respondent.
Therefore no statement made by Thornton to him can sup-
port any 8(a)(1) allegation of the complaint. Joseph C. Asher
d/b/a The Meat Cleaver, 200 NLRB No. 130, fn. 2. A sum-
mary of his testimony is here set forth because (a) on the
theory of the General Counsel, it confirms and reinforces
the testimony of all witnesses called by him and (b) on the
theory of the Respondent that, as stated in Respondent's
brief to me:
Jim Thornton was the victim of a PLOT. It was de-
termined early in the campaign that evidence would be
developed to incriminate Thornton. Thornton was
BAITED with constant questions and his answers and
legitimate comments were duly noted in memoranda.
These memoranda were deliberately slanted and soon'
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the individuals in question began to believe what they
had written down. The more they discussed it among
themselves, the more firmly they believed the slanted
and distorted versions of what Thornton had said.
Whitney, questioned by the General Counsel, testified:
About a week and a half before Christmas 1971, in a restau-
rant in the shopping plaza, Thornton told him there were
three reasons he had been made manager. The store was a
shambles and a mess and needed to be straightened up and
put back on a profit-paying basis. Three other drug chains
were coming in and Walgreens wanted to get its customers
established. A third reason for the appointment of Thornton
was to keep the Union out, to keep it from coming back in.
This could be done by making people work undesirable
shifts, transferring people to San Francisco, transferring
Bay area people to Petaluma to counteract the prounion
vote, and watching people and causing them to make mis-
takes to afford grounds for dismissal. He could "flood the
vote" with Guy Green and Claude and June Thornton.
Thornton asked how the Union got started in 1951, and
Whitney replied that it was Jim Sparks, who no longer
worked there.
On Friday, after Thornton received a copy of the Union's
petition, at a restaurant in the shopping plaza Thornton
asked Whitney who started the "whole damn mess," asked
if there was anyone known to Whitney to be in favor of the
Union and inquired specifically about Audrey Milligan,
Linda Duncan, Linda Dodd, and Jo Davidson. Thornton
told Whitney that Walgreens would never let their stores go
union and would never sign a contract. He quoted Wessels
as having told him that if the store had voted to go union
in January 1971 it would have been closed because it was
in such bad shape, and not making a profit. Thornton said
that "with a store stuck out in the sticks like that" they
wouldn't let it go union because they had 600 stores, and the
only union ones were in the San Francisco bay area, which
they let go union in the '30's for the protection of their
people. Thornton told Whitney to keep his ears open and
to report anything he heard.
One week later, when Whitney was picking up a prescrip-
tion at the pharmacy, Thornton said, you will have to get
another job for your wife, because if the store goes union
she won't be working here any more. The store won't sign
a contract and the Union will have to go on strike. Thornton
wouldn't have to worry because Walgreens could "bring in
managers as scab labor or he could be transferred to anoth-
er store in the Bay Area, and he didn't have to worry be-
cause he had lots of money in the bank."
Near the end of April, Thornton was talking to his ap-
prentice in the pharmacy about O'Neil wanting $4 per hour,
when Thornton asked Whitney to go to the employees'
breakroom with him. There Thornton took out some books
and told Whitney- how Walgreens was working on sick
leave, improved hospitalization, improved profit sharing,
and told Whitney they couldn't do these things while the
union thing was going on, and if the store did go union they
couldn't get these things. If the Union didn't come in, the
employees would ,probably get these things in about 6
months.
Just after the first of May, Thornton told Whitney that
the store wouldn't sign a contract. The law was that they
had to negotiate, but they didn't have to agree to anything.
They could end up with the people making less. They could
take 5 years, they wouldn't have to sign anything that would
go against them and they were not about to let that store go
union.
On cross-examination, Whitney repeated the foregoing
testimony with slight alterations and some additions. The
talks about the Union were initiated by Whitney. When
Whitney asked Thornton why he wasn't worried about the
Union, Thornton replied that he could flood the vote by
bringing in Claude and June Thornton and Green and two
or three other people, helping out for a few days, and they
would be eligible to vote. If he found out that people were
for the Union, he could make it rough for them by staying
on their backs, causing them to make mistakes in making
change, making, their cash registers come up short and that
this would be reason for dismissal and he could dismiss
them.
In the conversation after he received the union petition,
Thornton asked who had voted for the Union the first time
and Whitney named Audrey Milligan, Robert Levin, Linda
Duncan, Linda Dodd, and Bill Spater. Thornton said the
store would never go union, would never sign a contract,
and they would close the store. Thornton said:
I'm not kidding . . . I talked to Wessels a few days
before this and he told me that if the store would have
went union the first time, the first election, that they
would have closed because they were losing money, the
store was in bad shape, and at that time their decision
would have been to close it.
7. Marjorie Bridge
Bridge is business representative and organizer for the
Union. She was involved in both organizing campaigns at
Respondent's Petaluma store. Following the issuance of
Administrative Law Judge Hemingway's Decision, October
13, 1971, she telephoned Levin and said she "needed anoth-
er card." She mailed a blank to him and he mailed it back
signed and dated October 30, 1971. Following the issuance
of the Board's decision, February 15, 1972, she resumed her
organizing• efforts. She telephoned for appointments and
spoke to employees at their homes individually and in small
groups.
Debra O'Neil signed a card in her own home on February
29, 1972.
Darlene Barlow signed in her own, home on March 1.
Audrey Milligan, Judith Whitney, Linda Dodd, and
Anna Jo Davidson signed in Milligan's home on April 7.
William Coberly signed in his own home in the presence
of his wife on April 10, after receiving a positive assurance
from Bridge that no one from the Company would ever see
the card.
Richard Rogan signed in his own home in the "presence
of his wife on April 10. Bridge had previously assured Ro-
gan that no one would know that he had signed, other than
her superior, Mr. Lewis, and a Labor Board agent. Rogan
told her that if this pledge was violated it would void his
authorization.
WALGREEN CO.
Ron Morgan signed in his own home on April 18.
Ginger Johnson signed in her own home on April 20.
All of these are- intelligent , articulate, literate persons.
There is no ambiguity in the card, the full text of which is:
RETAIL-CLERKS INTERNATIONAL'
ASSOCIATION
(Affiliated with the AFL--CIO)
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRESENTATION
Desiring to enjoy the rights and
benefits of collective bargaining
I, the undersigned employee of the
(Firm Name)
Store Address
Store No.
Employed as
(Job Title)
Dept. Home Address
Phone
hereby authorize Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, AFL--CIO, or
its chartered Local Union to represent
me for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, respecting rates of pay,
wages , hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, in accord-
ance with applicable law.
(Date)
(Signature of-Employee)
Beginning in March 1972, Bridge asked employees to
keep notes of things that were happening in the store . Begin-
ning in May 1972, Bridge reduced the reports which she had
received from employees to typewritten form . These notes,
and Bridge's interpretations, were submitted by the Union
to the Board agent who investigated the Union 's charges.
8. Robert Levin
Levin was hired in January 1970, with the understanding
that he would be paid "whatever the going union scale was"
for pharmacists. Johnson describes -Levin as "the"type of
person that says what he believes. If he wants to say some-
thing, he says it." Because of the form of the ballot, all
persons who had knowledge of the 1971 election knew that
he had voted'for the Union. Soon after Thornton became
manager, Levin complained tol►im and to District Manager
Saunders that he was not receiving ' the 25-cent ' increase
required by union, contracts , -He also complained that he
could not give proper service to customers because he did
133
not have a pharmacy clerk, and because much of
Thornton's time, during their overlapping shifts, was occu-
pied with managerial duties. He complained that Walgreens
was not using biodegradable medicine bottles . He threat-
ened to advise the State Board of Pharmacy that Thornton
had left an intern in the pharmacy , unsupervised, unless the
situation was corrected . He was still employed as a pharma-
cist in Respondent 's Petaluma store as of the date of this
hearing and in November 1972 his wage was raised to either
$7.50 or $7.75 per hour.
9. Ginger Johnson
Mrs. Johnson (no relation to Philip Johnson) was hired
November 14, 1971 , and resigned September 27, 1972. She
worked on the cosmetic counter from 12:45 p .m. to 9:15
p.m., Monday through Friday. She was paid $2 per hour
and commission on certain franchised items. When after the
election Thornton told her that she would work days and
some weekends, and Whitney would work nights, she pro-
tested that she could do neither . Day work would require
that she pay half her salary to a babysitter , and she had
other things to do on weekends.
10. Anna Jo Davidson
Mrs. Davidson was hired in February 1970 at $2.45 per
hour. After Thornton became manager, she also earned
commission on franchised items. From April 1972, to the
date of the hearing, she worked in the cosmetic department
on Saturday and Sunday only. She was employed elsewhere
on Monday through Friday.
11. James Scott Stone
Stone is the son of Jo Davidson. He was hired by Thorn-
ton at her request on Friday, April 7, 1972. He resigned 3
weeks after the Board election . Stone's rate of pay was $2
per hour. Before the election, he had been scheduled to
work 5 days a week, Wednesday through Sunday. His hours
were reduced on the new schedule posted by Thornton and
Johnson explained that the total hours allocated to the store
by Chicago headquarters had been reduced from 620 per
week to 550 per week. Johnson told Stone, " It seems like a
reprimand."
12. Gregory Charles Brandner
Brandner was hired in October 1971 while still in high
school. His rate of pay was $1.90 per hour. From February
to June 1972, he was "on call." Whenever a cashier, due to
illness, was unable to work, she would call'Brandner as her
replacement without checking with Thornton.
13. Darlene Barlow
Barlow was hired in August 1971' at $2 per hour. When
Whitney left on her leave of absence,. Barlow was ' assigned
the day shift on the cosmetics counter atao increase in pay.
Her pay was'raised in October 1972:
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14. Ronnie L. Morgan
Morgan was hired about March 6, 1972, at $2.75 per hour
as head of the camera department. He worked full time
through Friday, May 26. In late April, he told Thornton that
he had accepted the job of assistant manager at another
store at a salary of $700 per month and would be leaving
in 2 weeks. On May 31, 1972, he worked 1 day to break in
a replacement and formally resigned.
15. William James Coberly III
Coberly was hired October 9, 1971, as a stockboy and
cashier . His rate of pay was $2 per hour . After he was put
in charge of the liquor department in 1972, he received extra
compensation through Thornton's falsification of the num-
ber of hours worked . After Thornton left, he became "assis-
tant manager as far as opening and closing the store."
Coberly resigned November 3, 1972, and was rehired as a
stockboy by the new manager on November 15, 1972.
16. Richard Rogan
Rogan was hired as a clerk in April 1971 at $1 .90 per hour
and quickly raised to $2. Prior to the December 1971 store
meeting, he was given the title of management trainee and
his pay was raised to $2.65 per hour . On the rare occasions
when both Johnson and Thornton were absent , Rogan was
in charge of the store. When Johnson resigned , Rogan be-
came assistant manager.
17. Debra Jean O'Neil
Miss O'Neil was hired September 1, 1971, and discharged
August 4, 1972 . Her rate was $2 per hour . She worked full
time on the number one checkout register through at least
June 23 , 1972 . In July, she worked only 3 days a week,
Friday, Saturday , and Sunday.
On January 8, 1972 , Thornton questioned her about a
customer complaint that she had been rude. She said that
customers made her nervous . When she would call for cus-
tomer service, Rogan and Coberly were slow to respond,
and she asked Thornton to speak to them.
On January 16, she was late to work . She explained that
she had had a flat tire on the way from Santa Rosa . Thorn-
ton accepted her excuse. On February 12 and on March 24,
Thornton spoke to her about her discourtesy to customers.
On Saturday, May 27, she was late to work . She explained
to Thornton that when she had called in to ask what time
she was to report Philip Johnson had misread the schedule,
and that she came to work at the time Johnson told her to.
Thornton did not accept her excuse and did not check with
Johnson. In a telephone conversation on May 30 , Thornton
told Wessels that he was having tardiness problems with
O'Neil and had warned her that if she continued to be late
she would be discharged . Wessels answered:
... be careful about this . . . because of the fact that
we're facing an election , if there is a repetition , be sure
that we 've got the facts and be sure that we do have
proper cause, because we may be asked to defend her
discharge in a Labor Board Proceeding.
Philip Johnson testified that O 'Neil was no more and no
less punctual than anyone else. Lack of punctuality was a
problem with all of the clerks . Johnson also testified: "She
was a good employee."
18. Robert Powers Hoteling
Colonel Robert Hoteling , United States Army, retired,
had, prior to August 1972 , shopped at Walgreens about
once a week for about 2 years. He has not entered the store
since Monday, July 31, 1972.
F. The Discharge of Debra O'Neil
1. Testimony of William Coberly
Coberly testified that he had sold liquor to Colonel Hotel-
ing and had examined his driver 's license while cashing his
checks . On Monday, July 31, at about 6 : 30 p.m . while Co-
berly was at the camera department cash register:
He pointed his finger at me and said , "I want to talk
to you about one of your employees . . . . I want to talk
to you about the blond haired witch on the front cash
register . . . the one that was on there yesterday... .
I don't know her name , but she was working yesterday,
she was very rude to me , and what she said to me, I will
never tolerate again. . . . I don 't believe in people ex-
pressing themself to me in this way. . . . She called me
a Son-of-a-Bitch."
Coberly replied , "Sir, this is above me . Let me take you back
to my manager ." Coberly escorted Hoteling to the pharma-
cy, introduced him to Thornton , stating "This gentleman
has a complaint against one of our employees," and left.
2. Testimony of Richard Wessels
Wessels had an appointment on Wednesday, August 2, to
present to the Board's Field Examiner evidence relating to
objections and challenges . In preparation for this meeting,
he met at James Thornton's home with James, Claude and
June Thornton , Gregory Brandner, and Philip Johnson, on
the evening of Tuesday, August 1. At this meeting, James
Thornton told Wessels:
... he had a very serious customer complaint on Deb-
bie O'Neil. . . . He said it was a Hoteling, who was a
retired Army Colonel who had given him, the day be-
fore , a very serious complaint on Debbie O'Neil. That
she had committed some act of rudeness and the Colo-
nel was very upset and had told Thornton that this
young lady had been rude to him or to his wife in the
past . . . and the Colonel had told Thornton that he
wouldn't shop in the store any more.
I told Mr. Thornton that . . . this is serious kind of
stuff. . . . This is the kind of thing that we can't toler-
ate and certainly the union situation doesn't insulate
WA`LGREEN CO. 135
someone from discipline.... I explained to him that
when she comes back to work, he should get Mr. John-
son there and give her an opportunity to explain, and
if he's not satisfied with the explanation, then he should
fire her... .
Wessels testified that Thornton in describing the incident
did not repeat the words used by Hoteling nor did he use
the euphemism, "SOB." All Thornton reported was that
,O'Neil had been discourteous. On cross-examination, Wes-
sels testified:
Q. (by Mr. Sprague) Did Mr. Thornton ever tell you
what he told or said to Miss O'Neil on the discharge
interview?
A. He told me that he had talked to Miss O'Neil
about the incident and that she didn't recall anything
about it.
Q. Did he tell you that he told her that the customer
purportedly said that she called him a Son-of-a-Bitch?
A. Yes. This was after-this was fairly recently that
he told me that.
Wessels did not speak to Colonel Hoteling until he tele-
phoned him from Chicago in connection with his prepara-
tion for the trial of this case.
3. Testimony of Col. Robert Hoteling
On some Sunday in the summer of 1972, Mrs. Hoteling
asked O'Neil at the only open checkstand whether a certain
advertised item was in stock. O'Neil replied, "If it's not
there it's not there." As they were leaving the store, Mrs.
Hoteling remarked to her husband, "My aren't we pleasant
and courteous in here this morning."
A week or two later in early afternoon, Colonel Hoteling
entered the store, picked up some radio batteries from an
open bin near the camera counter and walked to the back
of the store. Observing Thornton in the prescription depart-
ment he rapped on the glass and described the incident
between his wife and O'Neil, stating, "One of your clerks
leaves a lot to be desired as far as courtesy is concerned".
He told Thornton that the clerk was a blond, with the name
badge "Debbie" or "Debra." Thornton asked for and re-
ceived Hoteling's name and telephone number.
Hoteling did not speak to Coberly. O'Neil did not address
any improper language to either the colonel or to his lady.
The colonel did not tell Thornton that O'Neil used any
vulgar language. On this point Hoteling was very emphatic,
"It did not occur. I think I would remember." In speaking
to Thornton, the colonel was not angry and his tone was not
loud.
4. Testimony of Richard Rogan
Rogan was in charge of the store on Sunday, July 31.
Rogan testified that on Friday, August 4:
Mr. Thornton asked Mr. Johnson and myself to ac-
company him to the back end of the stockroom... .
Debbie . . . came back. Mr. Thornton . . . started
talking to Debbie . . . he said he had a very serious
customer complaint about her from the previous week-
end . . . she had'been rude to a customer . . . I believe
he mentioned the tardiness, her being late. Her attitude
in general towards the public, I believe. Or rather her-
not her attitude. I should say her politeness or her
courtesy towards the public. But I think that the main
point was that one-the one customer-Oh, I think he
asked her about this customer. If there had been any
kind of discussion or argument between them. You
know, at the time this took place, between her and the
customer. And she said "no," she didn't recall any-
thing. At this time-let's see. I believe he said he would
have to-I don't recall whether he said discharge her,
or let her go. If she needed a job recommendation, to
let him know and he would write her out one.
On cross-examination, Rogan testified that he was pres-
ent during the entire interview between Thornton and
O'Neil, that O'Neil had tears in her eyes and was crying, and
that the words "son of a bitch" were not spoken by Thorn-
ton. Thornton's only accusation was that O'Neil had treated
a customer "rudely."
5. Testimony of Debra O'Neil
When O'Neil reported for work on Friday, August 4,
Johnson escorted her to the stockroom where Thornton and
Rogan were waiting. Thornton said, "Tell me what hap-
pened Sunday." As O'Neil was reciting her activities,
Thornton interrupted with, "What about the customer?"
When O'Neil replied, "What customer?" Thornton ex-
plained that she was supposed to have called a colonel a
"son of a bitch." O'Neil denied knowledge of any such
incident and denied that she had used any such language.
Thornton then said that he was dismissing her on the
grounds of "insubordination, excessive tardiness, and dis-
courtesy to customers." O'Neil was in tears and Thornton
ended the interview with the statement that if O'Neil needed
a good reference he would write one up for her.
6. Testimony of James Thornton
Thornton testified, on direct examination by Mr. Wes-
sels:
I was working the pharmacy on a Monday evening .. .
the Monday before I relieved her of her duties ... and
I had just completed filling a prescription and Mr.
Coberly came around the end of the pharmacy and he
said, "Mr. Thornton, that man out there has a very
serious complaint" . . . and this elderly man said,
"You're the manager?" I said, "Yes sir." He said, "Why
don't you ever work here on Sunday and find out what
is going on in this store?" I said, "Sir, I work seven days
a week, what seems to be the problem?"
He said, "I was in here yesterday and that blonde
cashier up there got very sarcastic and nasty at me and
called me a Son of a Bitch." My reply to him was, "sir,
I'm trying everything in my power to correct this situa-
tion in this store." And that was the end of the conver-
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sation.... I remember that just by instinct , I tore a
piece of paper on the corner of a pad and said, "Sir,
would you give me your name and telephone number?"
He said "Colonel Hoteling ," and I wrote down "Colo-
nel Hoteling" and the telephone number'. .. then he
took off.
The next evening in Thornton's apartment, while he, Guy
,Green, June Thornton, Stan Thornton, and Gregory Brand-
ner were reading and signing affidavits which had been
prepared by Wessels , and going over payroll records,
Thornton spoke up and said:
Mr. Wessels, I've had a very serious complaint about
this Debbie O'Neil and I'm just at the end of-the line
with her, I just can't put up with it anymore, and you
asked me if I knew who it was, and I said "yes, I wrote
down the name and telephone number on this little slip
of paper" and I took it out of my wallet and gave it to
you, and you wrote it down and gave it back to me
I described the incident to you and you told me that
this was a very serious complaint , and if I was positive
in my mind , it was ground, really severe, and I said,
"Yes, because he really blasted me at the pharmacy."
Then you said, "Jim, I can't run the store for you, but
what would you do if the union wasn't involved?" I
said, "I would fire her." . . . then you proceeded to tell
me, when Debbie came back to work to make certain
that I discussed the incident with her , and to get her
side of the story, and bring up the other problems, and
if she didn't have a valid reason, that this would be
grounds for dismissal , and then you added , make sure
that some guy didn't grab her legs or go, up her dress
or something of this nature.
So I told you, "yes sir, I will", and that Friday I
dismissed Debbie O'Neil after discussing it with her
When Debbie came to work , Mr. Johnson brought
her back . Mr. Rogan was present . We went to the stock
room and I had these disciplinary notes with me. I
asked Debbie, "What happened on Sunday? Some col-
onel really blasted me about the mistreatment and
about a name that you called him. Do you remember
anything about it?"
Debbie hesitated for a while , and she said, "No."
Then I said , "Debbie, I had previously warned you
about customer complaints, I had to warn you about
tardiness , I have warned you about insubordination, I
have warned you about taking excess time on your
breaks, just that same 'day you took ten minutes extra
on your break . Why did you donit?" She said that she
had gone to a hamburger stand and she 'tripped in. a
ditch or something of that nature... .
Then I started reading'the disciplinary actions that
I had against her and I said, "'Debbie, I have warned
you many times tan these different occasions , and it's
nothing toyou,andIhav doneeverythingthathcould
possibly do to get your- mind squared away , so that
whatever is bothering you, that you could become 'a
good employee . In my personal opinion and yours and
management, the retail business is just not cut out for
you, you should get an office job where you don't have
to deal directly with the public . If 'you need a recom-
mendation or something in that nature , I'll be happy to
give it to you."
On cross-examination, Thornton repeated verbatim his
recitation of the conversation with Hoteling , and added the
following details, not incorporated in his direct examina-
tion : The colonel was "loud , furious and upset" and could
be heard over the entire store . The colonel also said he
"would never shop at Walgreens ," he did not say that he
would not shop at Walgreens so long as Debbie was there.
Thornton's description of the exit interview was amplified
on cross-examination by the following:
I told her that I had a very serious customer complaint
on her that last Sunday she worked and that this cus-
tomer said she called him a name and that it was an
S.O.B. and that if he didn 't like the service, or the way
she waited on him that he could go to the other line or
shop someplace else, something to that effect.
Thornton further testified that O'Neil was very calm
throughout the exit interview and did not cry at all.
On the evening of July 31, Thornton wrote the following
memorandum on a company form:
DISCIPLINARY RECORD
Employee's name : Debbie O'Neil
Job Title: CA
Date 7/31/72 Time: Monday Afternoon
Store Address:
Witnesses: Col Robert Hotaling
Facts : Coln, told me I should work on Sundays.
Debbie O'Neil insulted him & called him a name-
Told him to go to other line if he was not satisfied with
her. He told me he would never shop Walgreens again
as long as she worked in store.
On Friday. afternoon, August 4, Thornton added on the
same memorandum the words:
Friday-I dismissed Debbie in witness of Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Rogan. I told her why-also that if she applied
for office work or needed a reference I would be glad
'to help her.
7. Testimony of Philip Johnson
Johnson, examined by Wessels as to statements made at
Thornton's home on August 1, 1972, testified:
He explained that Debbie was giving him some prob-
leans, that he had a. customer complain about her call-
inghim an,S.O.B.... and Mr. Thordton said, with this
WALGREEN CO. 137
union and everything, that he's tied, and you said,
"Well, she called him an S .O.B., that , of a clerk, is kind
of rude , especially such words ." Mr. Thornton said,
"Well, I can't fire her." You said, "Now, what would
you do if there was no union election?" Mr. Thornton
said, "I would have fired her ." Then, "Would you give
her a chance to explain what happened with her and
this customer and, if she did so, give her a chance. If
she said this, fire her." But he says , "Make sure-I
mean if he come up there and start grabbing at her legs,
you know, and start pulling at her dress , of course, you
know, she probably had a right to call him this name,
but give her a chance to find out, to defend herself, find
out what the problem was." . . . . Mr . Thornton also
stated that she had been tardy and this is not the first
time it's happened . He's had many complaints with her.
Describing the exit interview, Johnson testified:
Mr. Thornton explained to her, he said, "Well, isn't it
true that you called some customer an S.O.B.?" And
she denied it. And he said, "Well, this customer come
up to me and he really blasted me." "He said, `That
blondheaded girl up front gave me a real hard time. She
called me an S.O.B.' And he said , `I'll never shop here
again until she's gone ."' So Debbie says , "No. No
incident happened whatsoever Sunday ." Then Mr.
Thornton says, "Well , you know, Debbie, we're going
to dismiss you for this tardiness and discourtesy to
customers . It's' not the first time we have disciplinary
action on different dates and were going to dismiss
you." Debbie got very upset and she started screaming
and crying. One thing I did note though-I would have
to admit l didn't bear any cuss words from her, so she
did not cuss, and .1 feel under the circumstances, under
the pressure, if she was the type of person that was
going to cuss somebody , it would be then, but she
didn't say a word... .
Johnson also testified that on Monday , August 1, I came
in at one o 'clock and I immediately went to work and I
believe I was working in the back room and I came out to
the pharmacy where Mr . Thornton was working to go over
some freight bills or something, and he told me, he said,
"Man, some guy sure blasted me," and I says , "What for,"
and he says, "Well , apparently, Debbie called this guy an
S.O.B." and he showed me a piece of paper. It had a name
on it, and the name was Colonel Hoteling. It was printed
and he said, "Man, this guy isvery upset," and I said, "Well,
what happened?" He said, "Well, I don't know." He said,
"Sunday, Debbie called him a name and he was very upset
and he wanted to see the manager and he wasn't in, so he.
came back the next day and he said he'll never come back
to this store."
8. Reconciliation of the testimony of
Thornton , Johnson, Wessels, O'Neil,
Rogan , and Hoteling
On Sunday , July 30, O'Neil said to Mrs. Hoteling , "If it's
not there its not there." She did not speak to Colonel Hotel-
ing. She did not address him as a "son of a bitch" or as an
"S.O.B." Hoteling is a completely disinterested witness and
must be credited on this portion of his testimony. He re-
called this incident with utmost clarity, including his wife's'
resentment.
On Monday afternoon , early, as he was picking up batter-
ies at the camera counter , he made a casual remark to
Coberly about a "blond witch." He walked to the back of
the store, followed by Coberly, whom he did not see. Hotel-
ing told Thornton , "One of your clerks leaves a lot to be
desired as far as courtesy is concerned," identified the clerk
as a blonde with the name of "Debbie" or "Debra" and
described the incident. Coberly then repeated to Thornton
the remark which he had heard at the camera counter.
Immediately thereafter , Thornton gave a dramatic and
partly fictional account of his conversation with Hoteling to
Johnson.
On the evening of Tuesday, August 1, Thornton told
Wessels that O'Neil had "committed some act of rudeness."
Thornton did not use the words "son of a bitch" or "S.O.B."
in reporting the incident to Wessels . Thornton would not
have been inhibited by the presence of his sister-in-law. In
speaking to women employees in the store , Thornton used
the words "damn," "shit," and "Hell." Neither would Wes-
sels have responded as he did, had Thornton told him that
-a clerk had addressed an opprobrious epithet to a customer.
Such conduct by any clerk to any customer for any reason
would require immediate dismissal . If Wessels had heard
that those words were used , his only response would have
been. "Did she say that? If she did, fire her , and see that you
-apologize personally to the colonel ." I credit Wessels as to
what was said by him and by Thornton on the evening of
August 1.
Thornton did not, on August 4, tell O'Neil that she had
been charged by the colonel with calling him either a "son
of a bitch" or an "S.O.B." Rogan , who was present for the
entire interview was-an outstandingly honest witness, and
testified convincingly that those words were not used, al-
though Thornton had told him, before the discharge, that
O'Neil had addressed one of these epithets to the colonel.
Johnson's testimony is explained by his confusion of what
Thornton told him on Monday, with what Thornton told
Wessels on Tuesday'and O'Neil on Friday. Thornton's testi-
mony is explained by the need for self-justification.
Coberly's testimony, a complete fabrication , is explained by
fear. O'Neil's testimonyis explained by the 'fact4hat she was
shocked and had no independent recollection.
I specifically find that Thornton , when he discharged
O'Neil. on Friday, August 4, 1972, did believe that O'Neil
had been rude to a customer, but did not believe that she
had used any -opprobrious epithet in speaking to the custom-
er. His fictional account to Johnson,, suggested by the word
"witch," supplied by Coberly, became fact in his mind after
the discharge.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. Alleged Interference,
Restraint, Coercion
The complaint, in its paragraph numbered VI, lists 20 acts
alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
earliest date alleged is "on or about April 15, 1972." Region-
al Office records indicate that a copy of the Union's petition
in Case 20-RC-10668 was mailed from San Francisco, ad-
dressed to the Petaluma store on Friday, April 14. I stated
on the record that, in the absence of other evidence, I would
infer that it was received by Thornton on either Saturday,
April 15, or Monday, April 17. I now find that Thornton
received a copy of the petition on Saturday, April 15. This
finding is predicated in part on the statement in
Respondent's bulletin of April 19, 1972, that: "We learned
over the week end that the Retail Clerks Union is trying
again to bring you into the ranks of Dues paying members."
Although testimony was received from Judith Whitney and
Milligan as to statements made by Thornton before April
15 (within the 10(b) period), which would, if credited, be
violative of Section 8(a)(1), and testimony was received
from Thornton, denying that these statements were made,
there was no motion to amend the complaint.
1. Thornton, Milligan, O'Neil, and
Judith Whitney, Saturday, April 15
a. Testimony of Judith Whitney
Mrs. Whitney testified that she was at home when she saw
in the "Argus Courier" a feature article on Walgreens and
telephoned Thornton to tell him about its Milligan an-
swered the phone and said that Thornton was right there.
Thornton, after receiving Whitney's intelligence, said:
that he got some bad news in the mail, it was the thing
about the Union to have an election. "I have Debbie
in here right now, I'm talking to her about it," and he
said she was afraid of him. I asked him "why," and he
said he didn't know but would I please talk to her and
tell her how good the Walgreen Company was to its
employees . . . he said "I am getting her a raise, I told
her that she would be getting a raise and the-rest of you
are going to get one too."
Whitney then spoke to O'Neil and "I told her that I thought
the Walgreen Company was a good company and that it
was usually fair to its employees."
b. Testimony of Audrey Milligan
Mrs. Milligan testified that on April 15, in the pharmacy,
Thornton showed her papers from the National Labor
Board, and asked, "How could you do this to me?" Milligan
8 "Argun Courier" is a daily afternoon newspaper published in Petaluma.
With its April 15, 1972, edition was distributed a supplement describing in
detail the business, manufacturing, and agricultural enterprises in the area
In the half page devoted to Walgreens, Thornton is quoted as saying- `"Two
of his prime assets are pharmacist Bob Levin and cosmetologist, Judy Whit-
ney."
replied, "I don't know what you're talking about." Later,
Thornton told her that "we were all getting raises . . . he
had put in raises for everybody." Still later Thornton had
O'Neil relieved on the checkstand and called her to the
office. O'Neil sat at Milligan's desk, and Milligan stood.
The conversation lasted 50 minutes.
... then Mr. Thornton asked Debbie if she signed a
card and why she wanted the union in. . . and Debbie
... said yes she did and she wanted the union because
she was supporting herself and she needed the benefits
that she thought they could get for us. . . . Well, Mr.
Thornton said that the company would never sign a
contract, we didn't need a union. He said, if you want-
ed to you could always sign up with the Communist
Party or the Nazi Party too. Just a general conversation
about that we would strike and they could bring in scab
labor. . . . Debbie said that she had been there for
eight months . . . that she hadn't got a raise and how
come all of a sudden she was going to get one, and he
said I've been trying to get a raise for everybody and
now I am going to put in for it.. . . Mr. Thornton did
ask Debbie, why should poor Audrey go on nights or
Sundays because of the union. Then he said to Debbie,
and you know if you want a special day off you're not
going to get it. She said, Why not, if I give you two
weeks' notice and he said, because if the union comes
in nobody will be getting any privileges.
At some point in this conversation, Mrs. Whitney called,
and Milligan heard Thornton tell Whitney on the tele-
phone:
that he was talking to Debbie about the union, and he
wanted Judy to talk to Debbie on the phone and ex-
plain to her why we didn't need a union, and he handed
the phone to Debbie.
c. Testimony of Debra ONeil
O'Neil testified:
Mr. Thornton called me off the register and I went into
the office . . . the first thing he asked me was when I
had seen the union representative and I told him three
weeks ago,,and then he said, why did I want the union
and I told him my mom was in the Retail Clerks Union
and that the benefits were good and I told him that I
am 20 years old and that I am more or less considered
on my own . . . and then I told him that I had been
there six months . . . that I thought I deserved a raise,
... then he told me he had only been there four
months and he said raises were going into effect. Then
he turned to Audrey and said, "Isn't that true" and
Audrey said, "Yes", and he said he was putting in for
a raise but he didn't say anything about how much
WALGREEN CO. 139
* * * * B 1 if 'd th Th h d h dt t
... and we talked, like I said , at least 50 minutes .. .
then he said he could really be an S.O.B: and have
Audrey work the holidays and Sundays... .
Judy did call on the telephone and he was telling her
that he was talking to Audrey and me in the office... .
Well she talked to me and I told her that I had told Mr.
Thornton that I was a yes vote for the union and she
said, "Well, don't let that worry you." she said, "Be
cool" and we really didn't talk that long... .
Later in the afternoon Thornton told O'Neil that her raise
would be 50 cents an hour bringing her to $2.50. When she
asked "how come not $2.65?" Thornton replied that she
wasn't worth it. She had to "straighten out, couldn't get
smart with the customers, and was to watch the ads careful-
ly." O'Neil asked why she was kept on the register all the
time and was not permitted to work on the floor as earlier
promised. Thornton answered, "Things have changed now
that the union has stepped in."
d. Testimony of James Thornton
Thornton testified that when he received a copy of the
petition in the mail he telephoned Saunders, who chuckled
and said "send it to Mr. Wessels." 'Thornton testified that
he did not have a conversation with Milligan and O 'Neil on
the day he received the petition, and that he did not have
Whitney talk to O'Neil on the telephone on any occasion.
Thornton never asked O'Neil why she wanted the Union or
whether she had seen a union representative. Thornton did
tell O'Neil during the first week in April, on a Saturday, in
the employees' dining room, that he was going to ask Mr.
Saunders if he could get a raise for her and several other
employees. No amount was mentioned.
2. Promises of wage increases
Brandner testified that a few days after the first of April
Thornton told him that Respondent's law department had
approved raises for several employees , that after the Union
was decided, Brandner would receive $2.30 per hour from
April 1, 1972. His pay was then $1.90 per hour.
Davidson testified that during the first week in April
Thornton told her that he was going to raise her salary to
$3.12 per hour from $2.45 per hour. A few moments later,
her son walked by and Thornton said to Stone: "Jim, in-
stead of $1 .90 an hour, I am going to start you at $2.00 per
hour."
Stone testified that when he was hired Thornton told him
that his pay would be $1.90 per hour. During the second
week of his employment Thornton told him that his pay
would be $2 per hour. His first paycheck was at the rate of
$2 per hour.
Ginger Johnson testified that `just before the election
[Thornton] told all of us that he was going to be putting in
raises for us . . . then later on just before the election .. .
he said `Well I'm putting in your 35 cent raise now .' " Mrs.
Johnson did not receive a raise.
ar ow es ie at ornton, on t e ay a receive a
communication from the Labor Board, told her that she
would be raised from $2 to $2.80 per hour, but she should
mention this to no one. Barlow received a raise in late
October or early November 1972.
Levin testified on direct examination that in mid-April
Thornton told him that a 25-cent increase had been ap-
proved, "however, we've got this union mess and we can't
do anything about it until the NLRB elections' are over
with." On cross-examination, Levin testified that Thornton,
in the pharmacy on either April 14 or April 15, stated that
Levin's 25-cent raise had been approved, retroactive to
April 1, but could not be put into effect until after the
election was over.
Levin further testified that he heard Thornton tell O'Neil
that no one would get any increase until the "mess with the
union was over."
O'Neil testified that when she received her first paycheck,
I week after the April 15 interrogation by Thornton, she
went back to the pharmacy and asked why it did not show
the promised increase. Thornton replied that he could not
give it to her because the Union had stepped in and a
present raise would be considered a "bribe." He added that
she would receive her raise "after the union deal was
cleaned up."
Thornton testified that when he hired Stone he told him
that while he was paying the other "boys," Holstein and
Brandner, $1.90, he was going to start Stone at $2. A few
days later Thornton told Davidson that he was going to ask
Saunders to approve a raise for several employees . On April
2,3, or 4, Thornton told Barlow that he was going to ask
Saunders if he could get her a raise . Levin asked for a
25-cent raise almost daily. Thornton told Levin that he
would discuss it with Saunders. Thornton did not recall any
conversation with O'Neil in the prescription department
with Levin present. On a Saturday in the first week in April,
Thornton told O'Neil that he was going to ask Saunders for
a raise for her and for several other employees . Thornton
did not recall the mention of any amount. In early April,
before he had any knowledge of any union activity, Thorn-
ton telephoned Saunders and requested raises for six or
seven employees. Saunders replied that the Company was
not giving any raises, and reminded 'Thornton that
Respondent's prices were frozen.
Whitney testified that both Johnson and Thornton had
told her that, under the Stabilization Act, any wage increas-
es would be limited to 5 percent.
3. Thornton's private discussions
with Judith Whitney
Mrs. Whitney testified that she and Thornton in January
1972 talked about the Union at a restaurant in the shopping
plaza . Thornton told her that there were three -reasons for
his appointment as manager . One was to straighten the store
up, the second reason was because new shopping centers
were coming in, and the third reason was to keep the Union
out. Stan and June Thornton and Guy Green were there to
help clean up the' store, but if a union vote came up they
would be able to vote and would vote "no." He could also
assign disagreeable jobs to employees, such as having Milli-
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gan scrub down the washroom walls with a toothbrush.
Mrs. Whitney testified that, a few days after her tele-
phone call with reference to the "Argus Courier" article,
Thornton asked her who had signed union cards, asked if
O'Neil had signed one, told her that O'Neil had told him
that she had signed a card, and stated: "We have to keep
the Union out."
Mrs. Whitney testified that, the day after Thornton met
with Wessels, Thornton read aloud to her the entire "dos
and don'ts book," and continued by saying that Walgreens
would never sign a contract and employees would be out
carrying picket signs, that if the Union did not come in
employees would have, within 6 months, paid sick leave,
paid prescriptions, paid dental care, paid eye care, a better
medical plan and hospital plan, but if the Union came in the
employees would receive none of these things.
Mrs. Whitney testified that toward the end of April she
telephoned Thornton at about 7 p.m. and asked him about
crossing picket lines. Thornton told her in this conversation
that Walgreens would bring in people from other stores,
whom in his father's-day they would call, "scab labor," and
stated several times that Walgreens would never sign a con-
tract.
Mrs. Whitney testified that in another telephone conver-
sation Thornton told her that he had seen O'Neil in one of
the plaza restaurants talking to the "Union lady," and had
said to her, "Debbie, Don't get nervous and spill your cof-
fee, go right ahead and talk to the Union lady."
Mrs. Whitney testified after Thornton had been to San
Francisco he told her that June and Stan Thornton could
vote, and even he could vote because he was a pharmacist.
Thornton added that if the store did go union, "While you
are picketing, I will be sitting on those piles of, manure [in
front of the store] shovelling bullshit on you."
Mrs. Whitney testified that shortly before the election
Thornton told her that Walgreens would never sign a con-
tract, the employees would be out picketing, and it would
be hard for Mrs. Whitney to get another job in Petaluma.
When she asked'how could that be because "I don't even
want a union," Thornton answered that the other stores
would associate her with union activity and would not hire
her.
Mrs. Whitney testified that before the election Thornton
told her that Milligan was an excellent bookkeeper, but if
the Union came in Milligan would never become an audi-
tor.
Mrs. Whitney testified that, on the morning of the elec-
tion; Thornton told her that "we really need your vote," and,
that'Saunders was counting on-her for a "no" vote. Whitney
answered, 'Yes, I would vote 'no."'
Tliornton testified that, shortly after he becamemanager,
Mrs. Whitney told`him that shewas responsible for the store
not going union and was a very good friend of deg Can-
ning, then regional:director, later vice president of Respon-
dent. On at least two occasions in March or April, Mrs.
Whitney told him that' the Union was coming in, and
Thornton's reply was, "Well who gives a damn ... it
doesn't make a shit to me one way or other,",
Thornton testified^that, shortly after May 10, he read the
"dos and don'ts" book to Mrs. Whitriey,'telling her that
while it was eonfidenial`he was reading it to all the employ-
ees so that there could be no misunderstanding. '
Thornton testified that he received i 1 or 12 telephone
calls from Mrs. Whitney. One evening about 2 weeks before
the election, she called and started out by saying, "Wal-
greens going to win this overwhelmingly," and she started
calling, off names. Sometimes Thornton would lay the
phone down and wait on a customer and when he returned,
"she would still be rattling at the mouth." In this conversa-
tion, Mrs. Whitney told Thornton that the vote would be 19
to 1 in favor of Walgreens, that O'Neil would vote for the
Union, that she was unsure about Milligan and Ginger
Johnson. Thornton told her, "I don't give a damn. It doesn't
matter to me one way or the other."
Thornton testified that he did not discuss with Mrs. Whit-
ney any of the Company's plans for improvements, that he
never told her that the store would close, never told her that
the Company would never sign a contract, and did•not talk
to her at all on the day of the election. "She said something
about a strike, I didn't."
4. Thornton's private conversations
with Audrey Milligan
Milligan testified that in January Thornton told her that
he had heard that employees wanted a union and he could
not, because he had been a fair boss, understand why. Milli-
gan answered that it was unfair for him to be "threatening
everybody every day" with discharge and "we felt if we had
the union we would have a little bit of protection." " He said,
"Give me a chance to show that I am a good boss." Milligan
said,. "Fine, I'll give you a chance." Thornton said he could
force people to quit by changing their hours, and that if it
went to an election he could bring in people to flood the
vote. Milligan said she would give Thornton 6 months and
he said that was fair.
Milligan testified that, "almost every day" after Thornton
received a copy of the Union's petition, he said something
about "striking, no contract, scab labor." During the same
period, Thornton frequently said, "Debbie wasn't cut out to
be a cashier, this was not the place for Debbie, Debbie
ought to look for another job."
Milligan testified that 2 weeks before the election Thorn-
ton told her that he knew who had signed cards for the
Union. When Milligan replied that he could not know,
Thornton offered to prove his statement by writing down=
the names and Milligan accepted the, offer: Thornton then
wrote the names of Judy Whitney, Debbie O'Neil, Jo Da-
vidson, Levin, Bill Coberly, and Melanie Davis. Thornton
then asked Milligan to write down the names of those who
had signed cards. After' protesting that she did not know,
Milligan did make a list. It was the same as Thornton's
except that she omitted the name of Whitney and added the
name of Duncan.
Milligan testified that, when she told Thornton about her
ambition to become a travelling auditor, Thornton advised
her that if the Union got in she would never become an
auditor because the Company would think that she would
try to organize other stores and would never trust her.
Thornton testified that in January, when he heard Milli-
gan using the intercom to talk to the cosmetic department,
he called the office from the pharmacy and told her to "get
WALGREEN CO.
your work done and quit horsing around." Milligan imme-
diately walked back to the pharmacy and said, "We've got
to have a talk." They went to the liquor storeroom, where
Milligan told him that she would give him 6 months to get
the store squared around, or she would get the Union in and
get rid of Thornton just like she did the other manager.
Thornton's only reply was, "I don't give a shit." Thornton
reported to Saunders that Milligan had put him on a 6-
month probation, and Saunders laughed. '
Thornton testified that Milligan was always talking about
the Union or about employees or about the Company. A
few days before the election she told him that she did not
know how she was going to vote. Thornton answered: "Au-
drey, look, I could give a shit what happens. I have a store
to run. I don't care one way or the other. Just don't bug me."
Thornton testified that when Milligan told him that she
wanted to become a travelling auditor he replied that it
would be a good experience and she would really enjoy it.
Thornton never said that if the Union came in this would
interfere with her chances.
Thornton testified that in April or May he overheard a
conversation in the office between Milligan and Barbara
Abreau, a visiting cosmetologist who was employed under
a union contract at Respondent's Castro Valley store.
Abreau told Milligan that she received no protection from
the Union and that the business agent ignored her com-
plaints. She had been forced by the manager to sweep the
floor, vacuum the greeting card section, and throw out the
trash. Other women in the store were compelled to unload
freight. There were arbitrary changes in the schedule. Milli-
gan told Abreau that she would refuse to do any of those
things, "regardless." Thornton did not participate in the
discussion.
Thornton testified that he never had any discussion with
Milligan about people who had signed union cards, and
never wrote down names of persons who had signed cards.
Thornton testified that about 2 weeks after the election,
Milligan asked, "Who do you think voted for the union?"
Thornton answered, "You will never be certain, because it
was a secret ballot. But I'll write down the names who I
thought voted for the union." Thornton wrote names down
and Milligan wrote names down. On cross-examination,
Thornton amended this testimony, stating that he did not
write down the names of those who voted for the Union but
did write down, at Milligan's request, the names of employ-
ees whom Thornton thought had voted for the Company.
These were: Mark Sage, Lowell Poole, Ginger Johnson,
Darlene Barlow, Robert Celani, Jim Stone, Linda Duncan,
and Rick Rogan.
5. Thornton's private conversations
with Jo Davidson
Davidson testified that, as she was returning from her
break on the day that Thornton got a letter about the
Union, Thornton asked her what was going on in the store
and what did she know about the Union. Davidson an-
swered that she had not been working there at the time of
the first election and he would have to ask others. In a later
conversation, Thornton told Davidson that if the Union
came in he would not be able to give jobs to young boys
141
such as Jim Stone. (Stone was 17.) In either this or some
other conversation, shortly before the election, Thornton
told Davidson that Walgreens would never sign a contract,
there would be a strike, Walgreens would close the store,
employees would be walking the picket line, something
about "scab labor," and Thornton felt sorry for people like
Milligan and Davidson. On the day of the election, Thorn-
ton told Davidson that he needed her support, asked her to
not let him down, and made an implied promise of a,full-
time job if she wanted it.
Thornton testified that he read the "dos and don'ts book"
to Davidson "so there will be no misunderstanding." He
denied questioning any employee about the Union. He de-
nied making the statement relative to not hiring young boys,
stating that he had in fact hired young boys while working
under a union contract. He testified that on election day
Davidson asked him where her son was, that he answered,
and that there was no other conversation. He did not offer
her full-time work because, for one reason, he knew that she
had a full-time job elsewhere. Thornton had no discussion
with Davidson concerning the Union other than reading the
"dos and don'ts book." Thornton did not recall making any
comment concerning closing the store, signing or not sign-
ing a union contract, a strike, or scab labor.
6. Thornton's private conversation
with James Stone
Stone testified that on the day Saunders visited the store
he had a private conversation with Thornton in the break-
room. Thornton told Stone that he was a bright boy and
Thornton was confident that Stone would vote "the way
you think is right." Thornton also said that, if the Union
came in, young boys such as Stone would not be able to
work in the store,'Waigreens would never sign a contract,
would let the employees go on strike, would pull in scab
labor, and would close the store.
Stone further testified that Saunders told him on the same
day (June 5, 1972) that the Union destroys initiative, that it
is for the satisfied man, for the man who does not want to
get ahead. Saunders complimented Stone and told him that
if the Union did not go through Stone would probably have
a good future with the store.
Thornton testified that he read the "dos and don'ts book"
to Stone. The Union was not mentioned in any other con-
versation.
The complaint does not allege any unfair labor practice
by Saunders, and Saunders did not testify.
7. Thornton's private conversation
with Robert Levin
Levin testified that shortly after the mid-April conversa-
tion concerning the delay in his 25-cent raise he had a
second conversation in which Thornton said:
Everything I am going to tell you is for your own good
.... Walgreens would never let the store go union
.... You're going to end up having to go on strike
because the Union will declare a strike. . . . We'll call
in scab labor. I know of an incident at White Front
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where the employees went on strike and it lasted five
years . . . . besides, there's always ways of getting rid
of people you don't want. . . . If you really want to
work in a union store, we have union stores in San
Francisco . . . . we can transfer you down there.
Levin testified that he heard Thornton tell O'Neil that no
one would get any wage increase until the "mess" with the
Union was over, and also heard him tell O'Neil:
Walgreens will never sign a contract, you're going to
have to end up going out on strike and it could last a
long time. It could be five years or more.
Thornton testified that he read the "dos and don'ts book"
to Levin, after which Levin asked what Thornton would do
in his position. Thornton replied, "protect my family."
Thornton never questioned Levin concerning his feelings
about the Union. Thornton did not recall any discussion
with Levin concerning the Union other than reading the
"dos and don'ts," and Levin's claim for wages to meet the
union scale. The portions of Levin's testimony above set
forth are not specifically denied.
8. Thornton's conversations
with Ginger Johnson
Mrs. Johnson testified that Thornton read the "dos and
don'ts" to her and said that if the Union came in the em-
ployees would go on strike. He also said that there was a
possibility of a strike. About 3 weeks before the election,
Thornton asked if she had talked to any union representa-
tive. Johnson replied that she had not and would not be
interested. About a week before the election Thornton told
her, "If any union representatives talk to you, refer them to
Chicago."
Thornton testified that he had two talks with Ginger
Johnson concerning the Union. In the first, he read the "dos
and don'ts book." The second was just before the election
and all he said was "Don't let anyone influence you."
Thornton had no recollection of asking her whether she had
talked to a union representative, or of telling her that if the
Union got in the store the store would close.
9. Thornton's conversations
with Darlene Barlow
Barlow testified that about a week after the promise of a
raise Thornton asked her if she had been contacted by a
union representative. When she answered in the affirmative,
Thornton told her not to let them persuade her, and she said
she would not.
Barlow testified that about the first of May, [Thornton]
came by and he told me not to let the union influence
me, that the company would never sign a contract, and
if we did vote union that the store might close, we
would be picketing, there'd be a strike, they would
bring in scab labor, and'I can't remember.
Barlow testified that as Thornton was reading the, "dos
and don'ts book" to her he made explanatory comments,
one of which was that he "could fire Debbie awhile ago for
selling briquettes cheaper than they really were."
Thornton testified that when he read the "dos and don'ts
book" to Barlow she said "all this doesn't make sense" and
that she didn't understand the whole "mess." Thornton told
Barlow not to let anyone influence her, that she should
make up her own mind.
10. Thornton's conversations
with Ronnie Morgan
Morgan testified that about 2 months after he was hired,
which would place the time in April 1972, Thornton asked
if he was going to vote for the Union and "of course I said
`no: "
Morgan testified that a week or so later Thornton again
asked him if he was going to vote union and received the
same reply, and,
He said at that time that if I did vote union, my chances
of becoming an assistant manager would be cancelled.
I'd have no chance in the training program. It would
then be cancelled out. He also said at that time that if
we did vote union and the umon came in, the store
would be picketed. He would lay off all the workers in
the store, bring in low wage workers and work them
and so forth and so forth.
Morgan testified that a month after the rumor of a union
got around, "Mr. Thornton came over and asked me if the
union lady had come and spoke with me at my house and
what-not, and of course I denied it and said `No I haven't
talked to her at all."'
Thornton testified that when Morgan was hired Thornton
told him that "The future in this company was wide open
for young individuals, to become managers, district manag-
ers, and to go right up on the ladder." Thornton did not
recall any mention of umon in any conversation with Mor-
gan, other than reading to him the "dos and don'ts book."
11. Thornton's general denials
Q. (By Mr. Wessels) Mr. Thornton, do you recall
interrogating any employees about the union, asking
the questions about.the union?
A. No, I never interrogated an employee about the
union.
Q. Do you recall threatening any employee that the
company would not sign a contract with the union?
A. I've never threatened an employee, no.
Q. Do you recall threatening any employee that
they'd be laid off or replaced if the union was selected?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Do you recall threatening employees that they'd
have worse conditions of employment if the union were
selected?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Do you recall threatening to withhold or to deny
WALGREEN CO.
promotions because of union activities?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Do you recall promising any employees that the
company would have better benefits if the union did
not get in?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Do you recall talking at all about improved bene-
fits?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Do you recall saying to employees that the com-
pany would never allow the store to go union?
A. Absolutely not.
12. Philip Johnson's conversations
with Audrey Milligan
Milligan testified that shortly before the election she was
eating lunch in the breakroom when Johnson asked, "How
was the dinner at Marge's house Sunday ?" and "How many
were there?" Milligan replied that it was a good dinner and
"it was none of your damn business who was there." John-
son also told Milligan that she should not talk to O'Neil in
the office, because O'Neil was for the Union and it made
Milligan look bad.
Milligan testified that after Thornton got the letter and
before the election, at a coffee shop,
we were just talking about the union and he was against
it and then he said something about the company being
better off lo,-king the doors because of this and that you
know, just paying rent on an empty building. But he
was always with his pencil showing you figures and
things and I just c ft remember that much about it.
Johnson testified that he had two conversations with Mil-
ligan concerning the Union . Johnson and Milligan were
having coffee in the lounge, when Milligan remarked that
she wasn't feeling good. Johnson asked "why?" and Milli-
gan answered that she had been at a union party the night
before. Johnson asked how many were there and Milligan
told him he should not ask that; Johnson apologized.
Johnson testified that when he was having coffee with
Milligan at a bakery in the plaza she asked, "Are they going
to close the store?" Johnson answered , "I haven't the fog-
giest," but relayed to her the figures which he had received
from Thornton , and "explained to her generally how they
could if they wanted to , but certainly no indication that they
would."
Johnson testified that on one occasion after the election
he observed that O 'Neil had left her register unattended and
was in the office talking to Milligan, and
I asked them , "Please , you know . Number one , you're
the cashier, front cashier, and you can 't watch the regis-
ter from the office ; and, two, with this union, ev-
erything the way its going, I'd just prefer you guys just
be separated . You stay there and you stay here and do
your job . I don't want Mr. Thornton , you know, run-
ning around like a wild man , period." So they said,
"Okay, fine," and she went back to her job and Debbie
went back to the front register.
143
Johnson testified that after the election he told Milligan:
we know who voted for the Company. We know who
these votes are, and so Mr . Thornton assumes that the
rest didn't.
13. Philip Johnson's conversations
with James Stone
Stone testified that, 3 weeks before the election in connec-
tion with a discussion of the disorder in the stockroom,
Johnson explained that the store was running at a loss, and
it would be cheaper for Walgreens to pay rent on an empty
building than to sign a union contract.
Stone testified that after the election Johnson said, "I
know how you voted, you voted for the Union ." Stone
answered, "Yes. I wouldn 't have if Lowell Poole hadn't been
pressuring me to vote against the Union."
Johnson testified that he explained to Stone as he had to
Milligan, that the store was running at a loss and could not,
absorb extra costs. He also told Stone that Walgreens had
pretty good benefits , and if the Union accepted a contract
with existing conditions , Stone would be paying dues' for
nothing.
Johnson testified:
I was shocked when I found out certain people were
supposedly voting for this union , which was a process
of elimination . I knew who voted for the company.
Therefore the others voted for the union . Well I heard
Jim's name was on it, and all I could think was, "Here,
this guy was telling me this, and I know the opposite,"
and he was being a hypocrite, and I said, "Jim, please,
I know how you voted . Please don't stand there telling
me this and that. You have a right to vote any way you
want to vote, and we don't care how you vote . That's
your own prerogative ." And he agreed that he voted for
the Union.
14.. Philip Johnson's conversation
with Jo Davidson
Davidson testified that after the election Johnson said to
her, "I know how you voted. Mr. Thornton knows how
everybody voted."
Johnson testified that he did not recall saying anything to
Jo Davidson.
15. Philip Johnson 's conversation
•with Ginger Johnson
Ginger Johnson testified that when, after the election,
Philip Johnson told her that she would not have to work
days as per the newly posted schedule but could continue
on the night shift he said, "Oh , by the way, Mr. Thornton
knows that you voted union . . . . he knows pretty much
how everybody voted."
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
16. Wessels' conversation
with Levin
Levin testified that on May 10, 1972 , a date which he
memorialized in a postevent memorandum, he had a con-
versation with Wessels in the pharmacy . On direct examina-
tion, Levin testified:
He asked me what benefits I thought I could get from
a Union contract that the company didn't already offer
.... also I remember Mr. Wessels told me at that time
that Walgreens would never sign a contract . He told me
that as _a result, we would probably have to end up
going out on strike , I interrupted him and argued the
point that the Union wouldn't call a strike, that the
employees would have to vote for this , and he said,
"During negotiations , you won't have any choice."
.. I asked him why Walgreens was fighting so hard
to keep the Petaluma store from going union . He said,
"Well, if Petaluma goes union , then the stores on the
Peninsula might get the idea that they could go union,
and then the stores in the East Bay, and presumably the
whole state or the whole chain would go union because
of the one store in Petaluma, the domino-theory type
of thing. After that, Mr. Wessels started telling me how
good the company was, how generous the fringe bene-
fits were, and he cited two cases of some individuals
who had unfortunate financial or health problems and
the company generously had given them aid.... He
also mentioned to me that rather than open the possi-
bility of letting all the other stores go union, that Wal-
greens would just as soon close the store , that they'd
just as soon pay rent on an empty shell as let the store
go union... .
Cross-examined by Wessels , Levin testified that the con-
versation was the evening before the stipulation for certifi-
cation was signed in San Francisco , i.e., the conversation
was on May 9, and
You told me if the store went union , that we would end
up having to go on strike. You told me that during the
period of negotiations, the employees wouldn't have a
choice as to whether they would vote to go on strike or
not; that the store would get in scab labor.. . . you also
said that, rather than open up the possibility of letting
other stores go union , that Walgreens would just as
soon close up the Petaluma store , pay rent on an empty
shell .... you told me that Walgreens wouldn't sign
a contract.
Wessels, questioned by his cocourisel, testified that the
conversation was on the evening of May 9, 1972.
The subject of the union election had begun .... and
he knew that no company, no management would give
employees any more than they had to give them ... .
that's when we got on the question of the benefits, and
I said, You know Walgreen Company has done a lot
of things for employees . I talked about the profit shar-
ing plan and the major medical plan and I recall specif-
ically talking about the benefit fund . And I said, "If
that's true, Bobby, then why in the world do we have
this benefit fund?"... . this is a funded kind of thing
where we help people , who have been involved in hurri-
canes, and in personal disasters , "and you know this
doesn't square with what you are saying.",
Wessels testified that Levin then stated that the union
plan for dental care and paid prescriptions was better than
Walgreens . Wessels answered that, even if that were true, it
did not follow that Walgreens would agree to incorporate'
the union plans in a contract , and pointed to the example
of Chicago pharmacists . He reminded Levin that the Union
had made those promises in Chicago but that the contract,
when it was signed , "spelled out company policies right
down the line ." Levin announced , "I know why you are
fighting the Union so hard . It's because if your Petaluma
store goes union , everyone else in California will go union."
Wessels replied , "Well, Bob, that just isn't true."
Wessels testified that he had no recollection of the word
"strike" being mentioned by either participant . Wessels has
never used the term "scab labor" in conversation with any-
one. There was no mention of closing the store.
Wessels testified:
The whole conversation lasted about 10 minutes... .
I would certainly never say anything that would even
smell of violating the labor act to Mr. Levin because
.... there's no question in my mind that Mr. Levin
was for the union at that time and he's still for the
union. He made it very clear as to what he thought.
Mr. Ames then elicited the following specific denials:
Q. Mr. Wessels, in your conversation with Mr. Lev-
in, did you ever tell him that we would never let the
employees of Walgreens be represented by a union?
A. No, absolutely not.
Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Levin that he would be laid
off or replaced if the union were selected?
A. No, I absolutely never made such a statement to
him.
-Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Levin that the company
would close the store?
A. Absolutely not. Never did or said any such thing.
Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Levin that the company
would never sign a contract?
A. I never made such a statement.
Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Levin that the company
would close the store and that it would be easy to pay
rent on an empty building?
A. No, I never made such a statement.
H. Conclusions
In "The Sign of Four," chapter VI , Sherlock Holmes
admonishes Doctor Watson, "How often have I said to you
that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
WALGREEN CO.
remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
In these conclusions, I have eliminated the impossible. I
have considered and weighed the "background" testimony.
I have considered the bias and the demeanor of the witness-
es. I have considered and weighed the probable influence of
postevent, pretrial suggestion. No witness was conscious of
any deliberate prevarication. No witness had any clear, un-
contaminated recollection of the original event described in
his or her testimony.
Wessels could not believe that Thornton, with his loyalty,
intelligence, experience, and training, would have overstep-
ped legal limits. Thornton was interviewed by a Board
agent, who took notes. Wessels, using these notes and his
own recollection of what Thornton had told him, prepared
an affidavit. When Thornton read and signed the affidavit
prepared by Wessels, all recollection of the original events
was obliterated from his memory. The phraseology of Wes-
sels' questions was neither stupid nor accidental. Thornton
didnot remember what he had said to individual employees.
Neither did witnesses called by the General Counsel have
any clear recollection of the original events. They discussed
among themselves the statements which they attributed to
Thornton. At varying times after the events, they prepared
handwritten notes- Bridge also prepared typewritten memo-
randa based on these notes and oral reports. The Board
agent who took pretrial statements from these witnesses had
before her these notes and memoranda. Each witness, on
the stand, attempted with varying success to conform his or
her testimony to the final version incorporated in the pretri-
al affidavit. The effect of this postevent, pretrial suggestion
is apparent in the testimony of Judith Whitney. Much of her
testimony was elicited through grossly leading and sugges-
tive questions, the necessity for which is explained by her
candid admissions: "The only reason I remember it is be-
cause I wrote it down in the first place," and "Now that I
am sitting here talking about it I remember one even better
that happened in December, that is not even on there."
(referring to an April 1972 memorandum describing a Janu-
ary 1972 incident).
The only testimony which I regard as generally reliable
is that of Wessels, Hoteling, Johnson, and Rogan. Where
the recollections of Johnson and Rogan differ, I have cred-
ited Rogan. Johnson is completely free of bias. A compari-
son of his description of the postunion party discussion with
Milligan's description is illustrative of the distortion to
which Milligan's testimony was subjected by postevent, pre-
trial suggestion.
There remains, however, grossly improbable, uncontra-
dicted testimony, which on the admonition of Sherlock
Holmes must be the truth. I therefore find:
1. Thornton did, on April 15, 1972, question (YNeiI
about her union membership. Thornton did, in May 1972,
ask Milligan to write down the names of persons who had
signed authorization cards for the Union. Thornton did, on
or after April 15, 1972, ask Davidson what she knew about
the Union. Thornton did, on or after April 15, 1972, ask
Barlow whether she had been visited by a union representa-
tive. Thornton did, after April 15, 1972, ask Morgan wheth-
er he intended to vote for the Union, and on another
occasion did ask him whether he had been visited by a union
representative. Thornton did, after April 15, 1972, ask Ju-
145
dith Whitney who had signed union cards. This interroga-
tion, without any legitimate business, purpose, restrained
and coerced employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights.
Johnson's question of Milligan, "How many were at the
party?" was a casual comment on a subject introduced by
her, and was in no sense unlawful. Johnson did not interro-
gate any other employee.
2. Thornton did, on April 15, 1972, promise wage in-
creases to some employees. Stone was hired on the evening
of Friday, April 7. He worked 8 hours Saturday, April 8, 8
hours Sunday April 9, and 4 hours, Friday, April 14. The
payroll report to Chicago, covering the period April 1
through April 14, credits Stone with 20 hours. The report is
signed by Milligan and Thornton. Stone was paid at the rate
of $2 per hour on the basis of this report. Stone testified that
it was during the second week of his employment, he was
told by Thornton that his rate would be $2 per hour. The
testimony of O'Neil, Milligan, and Barlow place the first
promise of wage increase on April 15. Levin's testimony,
that Thornton told him on either April 14 or April 15 that
his increase had been approved but could not be put into
effect until the election was over, is specifically discredited.
Levin did not work on Saturday, April 15. On April 14,
Thornton had no indication from any source that there
would be an election. Brandner's testimony that the promise
was made to him during the first week in April cannot be
credited, since he, as did Levin, testified that the raise could
not be implemented until "after the union was decided."
Neither can I credit the testimony of Brandner, Davidson,
Ginger Johnson, or Barlow as to the amounts promised.
These are all intelligent literate persons, who must be
charged with knowledge that both wages and prices were
limited by Executive Order under the Wage Stabilization
Act. I, nevertheless, base the above finding on Thornton's
admission that he did tell some employees, including
O'Neil, that he was recommending raises, on the fact that
there is no corroboration of Thornton's testimony as to the
date of his telephone call to Saunders, no credible corrobo-
ration of Thornton's testimony that any of these promises
were made before April 15, and the fact that there is no
reason on this record, other than receipt of the Union's
petition, for telling employees in April 1972 that they would
receive raises. These promises of wage increases restrained
and coerced employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights.
3. Thornton, on various dates between April 15 and June
14, 1972, did tell Milligan, Judith Whitney, Davidson, and
Levin that Respondent would never sign a contract with the
Union.
4. Respondent did not, on this record, "threaten employ-
ees with layoff and replacement if employees selected the
Union to represent them." Thornton's statements about
"strike" and "picketing" and "scab labor" do not support
this paragraph of the complaint. Wessels did not, in his
conversation with Levin or at any other time, make any
statement which could-be construed as a threat of layoff and
replacement.
5. Thornton did not "threaten employees that they would
suffer more onerous hours and conditions of employment if
employees selected the Union to represent them." The testi-
mony of O'Neil, Milligan, Judith Whitney, Levin, and Bar-
low in support of, this paragraph of the complaint is a
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distortion of Thornton's remarks, accurately reported by
Philip Johnson, that even with a union contract employees
were still required to do their work and obey the orders of
the manager.
6. Thornton and Johnson did predict that in the event
employees selected the Union to represent them the store
could close. Johnson, in his explanations, did make it plain
that the store was losing money, and if Walgreens was con-
fronted with the choice between operating the store with
increased expense under a union contract, or paying rent on
an empty store, it might select the second alternative.
Thornton, on the other hand, stated categorically that if
employees selected the Union the store would close or could
close. Wessels in his conversation with Levin made no state-
ment relative to the closing of the store.
7. Thornton did tell Milligan that if the store went union
her chances of becoming a travelling auditor would be im-
paired, and did tell Morgan that if it became known that he
was in favor of the Union his chances of becoming an
assistant manager would be cancelled. This was good sound
advice, tendered in the friendliest of spirit, but it did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. Respondent did not "promise employees improved
medical and dental benefits for the purpose of discouraging
employee membership in or activities on behalf of the
Union." No statement by Thornton to Warren Whitney, a
stranger to the employment relationship, can be held to be
violative of any right guaranteed to "employees." I credit
Thornton's denial that on May 10, when he read the "dos
and don'ts book" to Judith Whitney, he described improve-
ments which would result only if the Union were defeated.
Mrs. Whitney's testimony is a distortion of Thornton's de-
scription of existing benefits. No testimony was offered,
other than that of the two Whitneys, in support of this
paragraph of the complaint.
9. Respondent did not, "at a coffee shop nearby
Respondent's premises, engage in surveillance of employee
membership in or activities on behalf of the Union." Mrs.
Whitney's testimony that Thornton said he had seen O'Neil
talking to the "Union lady" would not, if true, constitute
evidence of surveillance. This was a public restaurant, in the
same plaza as Respondent's store, frequented by
Respondent's manager, assistant manager, and employees.
No other evidence was tendered in support of this para-
graph of the complaint.
10. When Thornton, 2 weeks before the election, wrote
down the names of persons whom, he thought, had signed
union cards, and when his list appeared to Milligan to be
substantially accurate, this conveyed the distinct impression
that Respondent had private sources of information and
that the union activities of its employees were kept under
surveillance. I credit in full Milligan's description of this
incident. Thornton testified that it occurred after the elec-
tion. This is simply incredible. At the time Thornton and
Milligan wrote their list of names they were on cordial and
friendly terms, though on opposite sides of a political cam-
paign. Such a friendly exchange of information would have
been impossible after Milligan had been abused and pun-
ished by transfer to a lesser job and after Thornton had been
punished and humiliated by being forced to revoke his disci-
pline of Milligan. The credibility of Thornton's testimony is
further weakened by the fact that on December 7, 1972,
Thornton testified that he told Milligan: "I'll write down the
names who I thought voted for the union." On December
8, Thornton testified that he wrote down the names of those
he thought voted for the Company, and did not write down
the names of those who voted for the Union. Thornton
perceived no inconsistency. I conclude that Milligan's re-
port of the incident is accurate, in part because of her testi-
mony that Thornton's list contained the name of Judith
Whitney as a union advocate. By late May, Thornton had
reason to suspect that Mrs. Whitney was a double agent,
and he selected this devious means to fortify or to allay his
suspicion . Milligan deliberately lied to him when she omit-
ted Whitney's name from her list.
The statements of Philip Johnson, after the election, that
Respondent knew how everyone voted conveyed the im-
pression that Respondent had private sources of informa-
tion and created the impression that the union activities of
employees were kept under surveillance by Respondent.
11. Respondent did not "threaten employees that Re-
spondent would never allow its store to go union." There is
no credible evidence in support of this paragraph of the
complaint.
12. Respondent did not "threaten employees that Re-
spondent would force employees to quit if they selected the
Union to represent them." No credible evidence was ten-
dered in support of this paragraph of the complaint.
13. Respondent did not "threaten to blacklist an employ-
ee if employees selected the Union to represent them."
Thornton did tell Mrs. Whitney that if the Union was pick-
eting Walgreens it would be hard for her to get another job
in Petaluma. This again was good, sound, practical advice,
offered in a friendly spirit, at a time when Thornton merely
suspected that she was a double agent. Thornton' s remark
did restrain and coerce an employee in the exercise of Sec-
tion 7 rights, but it did not amount to a threat of blacklist-
ing.
14. No statement of Wessels can be construed as viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Levin honestly, but mis-
takenly, attributed to Wessels words which he had heard
spoken by Thornton.
15. Thornton's changes in the work schedules posted im-
mediately after the election were intended as exemplary
punishment of the individuals who were primarily responsi-
ble for the substantial prounion vote. The size of this vote
was convincing proof to Thornton that he had been receiv-
ing false information from Judith Whitney. Transposing her
hours with those of Ginger Johnson made no sense from a
business standpoint. Both had indicated to Philip Johnson
their complete satisfaction with the existing arrangement.
Bookkeeping for an operation of the size'and complexity of
Respondent's store is an essential, exacting, and responsible
position commanding a relatively high rate of pay . It made
no sense at all to put a semitrained clerk in charge of the
books, and waste Milligan's experience and skill on the
cigar counter. Levin was only incidentally punished. Thorn-
ton was tired of working 7 days a week, had been exhausted
by the strain of the election campaign, and needed a rest.
On this record, however, there were only three employees
who, before the election, were open and avowed union ad-
vocates. These were Levin, Milligan, and O'Neil. Employ-'
WALGREEN CO.
ees, seeing Milligan assigned to the cigar counter , and Levin
assigned to work alternate Saturdays and Sundays for the
first time since Thornton entered the store, would be sure
to get the message that swift and certain reprisal would
follow open advocacy of the Union.
16. Debra O'Neil was discharged because she was a
staunch and open advocate of the Union and as an example
to other employees that the Union could give them no pro-
tection. Thornton, prior to May 9, 1972, viewed the Union
with indifference . His intelligence from Judith Whitney that
the Union was resuming its organizing efforts was com-
bined with assurances that it was getting nowhere . His own
inquiries revealed that the only union supporters were Lev-
in, Milligan, and O'Neil.
On May 9, through two long conferences with Wessels he
was made aware of the fact that he and he alone was being
held responsible for the defeat of the Union in the then
contemplated consent election. Thornton, for the next 5
weeks did everything in his power, within his understanding
of the law, to ensure that there would be a decisive "no" vote
on June 14. After the election, when he sought to punish the
individuals primarily responsible for his failure, he suffered
the humiliation of being forced by his superiors to revoke
his published instructions and to apologize to the individual
who had deceived and misled him. The very presence of
Milligan and of O'Neil was a daily reminder of his failure,
his disgrace, and his humiliation.
After that experience, Thornton feared, rightly or wrong-
ly, that if he discharged O'Neil, on Colonel Hoteling's re-
port that she had told his wife "If it's not there -it's not
there," he would be compelled by his superiors to take her
back. This fear was expressed to Wessels in Thornton's
statement, as reported by Johnson, "with this union and
everything, his hands are tied" or as reported by Thornton,
"If the Union wasn't involved, I would fire her." When
Wessels returned to Chicago, without obtaining from Colo-
nel Hoteling his version of the incident (Wessels thought to
himself, "ah the heck with it"), Thornton proceeded with
the discharge. After the charge (20-CA-7689) was filed,
Thornton, fearful that he would again be overruled, recalled
his fictional account to Johnson and, aided by Coberly,
came to believe that O'Neil had addressed an opprobrious
epithet at Colonel Hoteling himself.
Thornton's motive in discharging O'Neil was the same as
his motive in changing the job of Milligan and the hours of
Whitney. It was to discourage membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union.
1. The Unit Appropriate
for Bargaining
The parties stipulated on November 15, 1972, that the
appropriate unit for bargaining is:
All regular full-time and part-time selling and non-
selling employees, including pharmacists and pharma-
cy students employed by Respondent at its 105 N.
McDowell Road, Petaluma, California, location, ex-
cluding the store manager, executive assistant manag-
ers (registered or non-registered)', guards and
147
supervisors as defined in the Act. _
Wessels' joinder in the above stipulation brings this case
within the rule of Retail Clerks Union Local 324 (Vincent
Drugs), 144 NLRB 1247. Levin's public votes in the elec-
tions of January 20, 1971, and June 14, 1972 , serve to distin-
guish this case from Thrift Drug Company of Pennsylvania,
167 NLRB 426, wherein the Board, by adopting the conclu-
sions of the Trial Examiner, held:
.... the Board may not, under Section 9(b)(1) of the
Act, include a professional employee in any unit [with
employees who are not professional employees] if he
has not had the opportunity to decide whether he
wishes to be joined with nonprofessional employees.
I find, on the basis of the above stipulation, and the entire
record, that the stipulated unit is appropriate for bargaining.
J. The Union's Majority and the
Propriety of a Bargaining Order
It was further stipulated that the "Excelsior list" received
in evidence on November 15, 1972, contained the maximum
number of employees in the stipulated unit on April 28,
1972. The following names appear:
R. Levin
11, Barlow
D. Brandner
R. Celani
W. Coberly III
J. Davidson
M. Davis
L. Dodd
F. Duncan
G. Green
G. Hara
J. Holstein
G. Johnson
A. Milligan
R. Morgan
D. O'Neil
L. Poole
R. Rogan
M. Sage
J. Stone
C. Thornton
J. J. Thornton
D. Tobin
J. Whitney
The General Counsel reserved the right to challenge the
inclusion in the appropriate unit of G. Green, G: Hara, C.
Thornton, and J. J. Thornton. Counsel for the Union
agreed with the General Counsel that the employees named
by him should be excluded from the appropriate unit. The
Union's counsel would also exclude Gregory Brandner.
The record before me amply supports the Regional
Director's determinations that G. Green, C. Thornton, and
J. J. Thornton should be excluded from the unit for bar-
gaining, and that Brandner should be included in the bar-
gaining unit.
Claude or Stan Thornton is the brother of Store Manager
James Thornton and the husband of June Thornton. Claude
Thornton lives in Mountain View and is steadily employed
by the Brunswick Drug Company in San Jose . He was paid
in cash, $182, for services performed at the Petaluma store
prior to November 26, 1971, and worked 21 hours during
the payroll period ending December 10, Thereafter, he
worked 11 hours during the April28 payroll period, 4 hours
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the June 9 period , and 4 hours in the June 23 period.
June Thornton was paid in cash , $ 130, for her services
prior to November 26, 1970. She worked 80 hours in the
December 10 period , 7 hours in the April 28 period, 4 hours
in the June 9 period , and 4 hours in the June 23 period.
Guy Green lives in Walnut Creek and is steadily em-
ployed elsewhere . Prior to December 10, he performed
services at the Petaluma store valued at $216 . He worked 72
hours during the December 24 payroll period, 10 hours in
the April 28 period, 4 hours in the May 12 period, 8.75 hours
in the May 26 period , and 4 hours in the June 4 period.
Brandner was hired in October 1971 and resigned in Au-
gust '1972. His rate of pay was $1 .90 per hour . Prior to
Christmas 1971 he worked a regular schedule . He did not
work in January 1972. Between February and June 1972, his
name was not carried on the posted schedule , -but he was
frequently called on to fill in for absent employees . During
the 20-week period , February 5 through June 23 , he worked
a total of 126 hours or an average of 6.3 hours per week.
Ginger Hara when she came from New York to Califor-
nia was given temporary employment at the Petaluma store
while she sought a permanent position in San Francisco.
She worked 96 hours during the payroll period ending April
28, 1972.0n the payroll report to Chicago , signed by Milli-
gan and Thornton , she is designated "Temporary Emp."
The report also shows that she was paid in cash (code 51),
$187.26. She performed no further services in Petaluma and
did not vote at the June 14 election.
Payrolls received in evidence show that Elinda Dodd did
not work at the Petaluma store between March 17, 1972,
and June 23 , 1972, but this fact, unexplained, is not suffi-
cient to overcome the stipulation of the parties.
I find that as of March 28 , 1972, and through May 31,
1972, when Morgan resigned , there were 20 employees in
the appropriate unit, including Brandner and Dodd, but
excluding Claude Thornton, June Thornton, Guy Green,
and Ginger Hara.
I find that on April 20 , 1972, through May 31, 1972, the
Union held authorization for representation cards executed
by 11 of the employees in the appropriate unit. Each signer
fully-understood the clear , language of the card . None was
misled or coerced or subjected to undue influence. Each
fully understood that by signing the card he or she was
designating the Union to be his or her bargaining agent after
a majority was obtained either on cards or following an
election.
I further find that from April 20, 1972, through at least
June 9 , 1972,9 the Union was designated and selected by the
majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for collec-
tive bargaining , and was, by virtue of the provisions of
Section 9(a) of the Act, the exclusive representative of all of
the employees in said unit for such purposes.
I further find that Respondent 's unfair labor practices are
,of such gravity and pervasiveness that the Union's card
majority provides a more reliable test of the employees'
desire than another election is likely to, and that, in order
to protect the statutory rights and interests of the employ-
ees, a bargaining order should issue . Joseph J. Lachniet
9 Between May 31, when Morgan resigned, and June It, when D. Davis
was hired, the Union represented 10 of 19 employees in the appropriate unit.
d/b/a Honda of Haslett, 201 NLRB No. 128.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, as set forth above , occur-
ring in connection with the operations of Respondent de-
scribed above , have a close , intimate , and substantial
relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it is
necessary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found ; to take certain affir-
mative action , including offering reinstatement to Debra
O'Neil, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis plus
interest at 6 percent per annum, including an undertaking
to bargain in good faith with the Union upon request; and
to post appropriate notices.
Since the conduct of Respondent described herein re-
flects an attitude of opposition to the self-organization of its
employees , the commission of unfair labor practices in the
future is reasonably to be anticipated from Respondent's
past conduct . Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respon-
dent cease and desist from in any manner infringing on the
rights of employees guaranteed by the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Waigreen Company, Respondent herein , is an employ-
er within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union, Local 1532 , Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association , AFL-CIO, the Union herein, is a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. All regular full-time and part-time selling and nonsell-
ing employees , including pharmacists and pharmacy stu-
dents employed by Respondent at its 105 N. McDowell
Road, Petaluma, California, location, excluding the store
manager, executive assistant managers (registered or nonre-
gistered), guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. By coercive interrogation of its employees , by prom-
ises of wage increases, by threats of refusal to sign any
collective-bargaining agreement , by threats to close the Pe-
taluma store, by threats to deny promotion to union adher-
ents, by imposition of onerous hours and by creating the
impression that the union activities of its employees were
kept under surveillance, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Debra O'Neil, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) of the
WALGREEN CO.
Act.
6. By thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practic-
es within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) .of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER10
Respondent, Walgreen Co ., Petaluma, California, its offi-
cers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their union or other protected concerted activities.
(b) Attempting to influence its employees ' choice of
union representation by promises of wage increases, by
threats of refusal to sign a collective-bargaining agreement,
by threats to close its Petaluma, California, store, by threats
to deny promotion to union adherents, by manipulation of
hours of work and work assignments, or by creating the
impression that surveillance is being maintained over the
union activities of its employees.
(c) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of
Retail Clerks Union, Local 1532, Retail Clerks Internation-
al Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
by discharging, or refusing to reinstate or otherwise discri-
minating against, employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Debra O'Neil immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority, or any other rights and privileges , and make her
whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her . Backpay shall be computed in
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
149
the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set
forth in Isis Plumbing and Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, personnel records and,reports, timecards, social
security payment records, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Decision.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Retail Clerks
Union, Local 1532, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit is:
All regular full-time and part-time selling and non-
selling employees, including pharmacists and pharma-
cy students employed by Respondent at its 105 N.
McDowell Road, Petaluma, California, location, ex-
cluding the store manager, executive assistant manag-
ers (registered or non-registered), guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(d) Post in the employees' breakroom in its Petaluma
store, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by an au-
thorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
REPORT AS TO DISPOSITION OF OBJECTIONS
Should the above findings, conclusions, and Order be
adopted by the Board, it is recommended that the Board
simultaneously dismiss the petition docketed as Case 20-
RC-10668.
11 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."