Crown Drug Co.

CROWN DRUG COMPANY 117 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the opera- tion of Allied Aviation's business, 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. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Crown Drug Company and Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, Local No. 782, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-20010. July 12,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Cyrus A. Slater, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent 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. With respect to the bargaining unit, the sole issue in this case is whether a unit limited to the employees in the Employer's divisions 1 and 2, located within the greater Kansas City metropolitan area, is appropriate, as the Petitioner requests, or whether the bargaining unit must necessarily embrace all of the Employer's stores in the States of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The Board considered this same issue, on the same facts, and held that the more limited unit could be appropriate for bargaining purposes depending upon the outcome of a separate election.' We see no reason now to alter that earlier deci- sion. Accordingly, we find that all employees employed in the Em- ployer's stores within the Employer's divisions 1 and 2, located within the greater Kansas City metropolitan area, including pharmacists, fountain employees, regular part-time employees, relief employees, and employees in the RX prescription center located at 3100 Troost, Kansas City, Missouri, but excluding porters, guards, store managers, assistant store managers, fountain managers, employees of all other divisions, and supervisors as defined in the Act, may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. However, this unit includes pharmacists, who we have found are professional employees, and we must first ascertain their desires as to 1 Crown Drug Company, 108 NLRB 1120. 113 NLRB No. 17. 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA130R RELATIONS BOARD inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional employees. We shall there- fore direct separate elections in the following voting groups in the unit : (a) All employees except pharmacists. (b) All pharmacists. The employees in. voting group (a) will be polled to determine whether or not they wish the Petitioner to represent them. The employees in voting group (b) will be asked two questions on their ballot : (1) Do you desire to be included, together with the nonprofessional employees in voting group (a), in a unit of all employees employed in the Em- ployer's division 1 and 2 stores located in the greater Kansas City metropolitan area for the purposes of collective bargaining? (2) Do you desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the Petitioner? If a majority of the professional employees in vot- ing group (b) vote "Yes" to the first question, they will be included in such unit, which in that event we find to be appropriate. Their votes on the second question will then be counted together with the votes of the nonprofessional voting group (a) to decide the question of representation for the whole unit. If on the other hand a majority of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote against in- clusion, we find voting groups (a) and (b) each constitute a separate appropriate unit. The votes of each voting group will then be sepa- rately counted to decide whether or not that group desires to be repre- sented by the Petitioner. 5. In the earlier case we found the record insufficient to enable us to determine the voting eligibility of relief employees. The parties now stipulate, and we find, that relief employees should be eligible to vote if they have worked on 4 or more clays during the month preceding the notice of elections. In all other respects we adhere to the eligibility standards of the earlier case. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Interboro Chevrolet Co., Inc. and John J. Robinson, Jr., Petitioner and Local 596, Garage, Parking and Service Station Employees' Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL and Local 724, District 1, International Association of Machinists, AFL. Case No. 4-RD-1 /2. July 112,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated February 25, 1955,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 14, 1955, 111] NLRB 783 113 NLRB No. 16.