Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 129 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

WALGREEN LOUISIANA CO., INC
Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc . and Professional
Pharmacists Guild of Louisiana AFL-CIO',
Petitioner . Case 15-RC-4178
October 28, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELEC-
TION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer, I. Harold Koretzky
on July 8 and 9, 1969. Following the hearing, and
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 15, this case was transferred to the Board
for decision. Thereafter, on October 23, 1969, the
Employer filed a motion to reopen the record to take
evidence relating to conflict of interest on the part of
the Petitioner. The Petitioner, on March 26, 1970,
filed a motion to reopen, requesting the Board to
reopen the record for the purpose of taking evidence
relating to the status of the Petitioner as a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. On April
17, 1970, the Employer filed its answer opposing the
Petitioner's motion and moved that the petition be
dismissed. On May 12, 1970, the Board issued an
order granting Petitioner's motion and remanding the
proceeding to the Regional Director. The Regional
Director issued a notice of further hearing May 22,
1970. On June 9, 1970, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer I. Harold Koretzky. The Employer
and the Petitioner have filed briefs in support of their
respective positions.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearings and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer. Howev-
er, the Employer has moved that the petition be
dismissed on the ground that the Union has ulterior
motives which would interfere with its duty to
represent employees.
129
In a companion case involving the same Union and
circumstances, National Food Stores of Louisiana, 186
NLRB No. 12, issued this date, we held that there was
no innate or proximate danger of the subordination of
employee interests foreseen by the Employer. There-
fore, we reject this contention and the Employer's
motion to dismiss is denied, We note, as we did in
National Food, supra, that appropriate remedies exist
under the Act should the Employer's fears prove
warranted and that we shall be sensitive to any
evidence of impropriety.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer, a subsidiary of Walgreen Com-
pany, Incorporated, an Illinois corporation operating
retail drug stores in approximately 35 States, is
engaged in the sale of retail drugs and related items in
the State of Louisiana.
Petitioner seeks an election in a unit comprising all
full-time and regular part-time pharmacists employed
at the Employer's 10 stores located in Orleans,
Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana,
excluding all other employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The parties
stipulated that store managers are supervisors, that
chief pharmacists are not supervisors, and that
pharmacist internes are to be included in the unit.
The Employer contends that its pharmacists who
bear the title of assistant manager registered are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act and should
be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner contends
that they are professionals without real supervisory
authority who should be included in the unit.
The record establishes that assistant managers
registered are in sole charge of the Employer's stores
for scheduled periods ranging from approximately 8
to 98 hours per 2-week period, and whenever the
manager is absent. Robert Dionne, the Employer's
district manager, testified the assistant manager was
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the store
in the absence of the store manager. He further
testified that when in sole charge assistant managers
are responsible, inter aha, for: counseling employees
about their jobs; assigning work; interviewing job
applicants and making recommendations on their
suitability; making recommendations on promotions;
enforcing company rules; making decisions about
unforeseen occurrences; calling in replacements to fill
temporary vacancies; approving customers' checks;
approving sales refunds; taking surprise cash counts;
processing special discounts; signing and approving
payroll reports; taking action on shoplifters; posses-
I The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearings
186 NLRB No. 13
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sion of keys to the store and to restricted areas; and
taking charge in the event of an accident. Testimony
by two store managers and three assistant managers
registered with respect to the authority and actual
duties of assistant managers in general corroborated
Dionne's.
We conclude that assistant managers registered are
vested with a wide range of authority and are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.2 We shall
exclude them from the unit.
Petitioner requests that relief pharmacists be includ-
ed in the unit; the Employer takes no position. The
record shows that those employees classified as relief
pharmacists are medical students employed during
the summer to replace pharmacists on vacation and
have no reasonable expectancy of continuing employ-
ment with the Employer. We shall exclude them from
the unit.
The Employer has 10 stores in the New Orleans
metropolitan area which the Petitioner has requested
as an appropriate unit. The Employer takes no
position but stipulates that it traditionally recognizes
multistore units, that the stores are in geographic
proximity to one another, that its labor relations
2 As in Walgreen Louisiana Co, Inc, 182 NLRB No 79, Member
Brown is not persuaded by the record that the assistant managers
registered as a group are supervisors
3 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U S. 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
policies are centrally directed and that individual
store managers have no authority or control over the
Company's labor relations policies. Additionally, the
record indicates that there is some interchange among
pharmacists at the various stores. We find that a
multistore unit comprising the Employer's stores in
Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisia-
na, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
On the basis of the foregoing, the parties' stipula-
tions, and the entire record, we find that the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time pharmacists
employed at the Employer's stores located in
Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes,
Louisiana, excluding all other employees, assistant
managers registered, relief pharmacists, guards,
watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election3 omitted from
publication.]
list, containing the names and addresses of all eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7 days
after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed