McKesson & Robbins, Inc.

In the Matter of MCI;ESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED, EIIrLOYER and WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL No. 452, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 30-RC-237.-Decided January 13,1956r DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clyde E. Waers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mmember panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties agree that a unit composed of all the warehouse employees assigned to the Employer's drug division warehouse in Denver, Colorado, excluding office and clerical employees, confidential and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitutes an appropriate unit. There is disa- greement however, as to whether the warehouse employees assigned to the Employer's liquor division warehouse in Denver, Colorado, should I After the close of the hearing, the Employer filed a motion with the Board to supple- ment and correct the transcript in various respects . We do not believe that the evidence offered in support of the motion would add anything of significance to the record and accordingly deny the motion. 88 NLRB No. 2S. 93 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be included in the unit, the Petitioner requesting their inclusion, and the Employer urging their exclusion. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, packaging and sale of drug products, cosmetics, and toiletries and in the business of im- porting and wholesaling wines and liquors. It conducts its operations through divisions, one of which is known as the drug division and another as the liquor division. The Employer's principal offices are located in New York but there are division offices and warehouses throughout the United States. In Denver the drug division main- tains a warehouse, and about a mile away is a warehouse maintained by the liquor division. There are two warehousemen attached to the liquor division warehouse, only one of whom is a full-time worker. These are the employees about whom the parties are in dispute. Each of the Employer's two divisions has a vice president in charge of operations. The vice president in charge of the drug division serves also as division manager of that division's activities in Denver. His offices are in the Denver drug division warehouse. The vice president in charge of the liquor division is headquartered in New York. Under him, and responsible for the liquor division activities in Denver, is a division manager who has offices in the Denver liquor division ware- house. Under the division manager in each Denver warehouse is a supervisory force which is accountable to him. In addition to their separate supervision and management, the Employer's two divisions each has its own bank account, records, accounting force, and sales organization. There is, moreover, no interchange of employees be- tween the two Denver warehouses. We are of the opinion that there are not sufficient common interests between the warehousemen in the Employer's two Denver warehouses to include them in the same unit. We shall therefore exclude the warehousemen in the liquor division warehouse. We find that all the warehouse employees in the Employer's drug division warehouse in Denver, Colorado, excluding office and clerical employees, confidential and professional employees, guards, watch- men, and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropri- ate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted at such time as the Board shall in the future. direct, upon advice from the Regional Director that an election may appropriately be held, under the direction and supervi- McKESSON & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED 95 sion of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem- porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 452, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL.