Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc.

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