Globe Discount City

GLOBE DISCOUNT CITY 213 Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc. d/b/a Globe Discount City i and Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1691, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 15-RC-5207 February 22, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO On September 19, 1973 , the Regional Director for Region 15 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found that a joint employer relationship exists between Globe and its licensees Zale and Meldisco with respect to Globe's Baton Rouge, Louisiana, discount store operations here involved, and he found appropriate a unit of all selling and nonselling employees of Globe and Zale , excluding, inter alia, the employees of Meldisco, contrary to the Petition- er's request. In accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds, inter aha, that in making the above findings he departed from officially reported Board precedent. The Board, by telegraphic order dated October 11, 1973, granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review . Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Conduct Election and Impound Ballots. On October 31, 1973 , the Board granted the motion and ordered the Regional Director to proceed with the election previously directed, permitting the employees of Zale and Meldisco to cast challenged ballots , and to impound all ballots pending decision on review . Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, including the Petitioner's brief on review, and makes the following findings: The Employer contends that the Regional Direc- tor, in finding a joint employer relationship herein between Globe and its licensees Zale and Meldisco,2 1 As found below, the Employer (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Globe), at the facilities involved herein, is alomt employer with its licensees Zale-Service Louisiana, Inc, and Meldisco, Division of Melville Shoe Corporation (hereafter referred to as Zale and Meldisco , respectively). 2 At its Baton Rouge discount store Globe itself operates departments for the sale of drugs, software, hardware, and sundry items The drug department employees classified as pharmacists and pharmacist interns are departed from Disco Fair Stores, Inc., et al, 189 NLRB 456. However, we have examined the provi- sions of the license agreements between Globe and its licensees Zale and Meldisco and are satisfied that they are similar in all material respects to the license agreements between Globe and its licensees in United Mercantile, Incorporated, d/b/a Globe Discount City, 171 NLRB 830. The Employer's reliance on Disco Fair therefore is misplaced, as the Board in that case specifically distinguished United Mercantile factually, on the basis that the authority there retained by Globe in the license agreements with regard to labor relations matters affecting its licensees was sufficient to create a joint employer relationship. Accordingly, we affirm the Regional Director's joint employer finding herein. The Employer contends that if, as we have found, a joint employer relationship exists, the Regional Director was in error in finding that Meldisco's lease department employees may not be included in the requested unit at Globe's Baton Rouge store. We agree. The Regional Director noted that Meldisco has approximately 600 stores nationwide grouped into the "K-Mart Stores Division" and an "all other division." The latter is subdivided into four districts, one of which is the "Globe District," comprised of. Meldisco lease department employees at four of Globe's stores : at that here involved, at two in Shreveport, Louisiana, and at one in McAllen, Texas. Each of these four Meldisco stores has a department manager, an assistant department manager, and one full-time or two part-time "stock employees." All these employees are under the direct supervision and control of the district manager who visits each store at least once every 2 weeks, spending about 2 days on each such visit. The Regional Director found that the duties of the store employees, including the depart- ment manager, are routine and repetitious in nature. He also found that Meldisco operations nationwide are integrated, and labor relations and personnel policies uniform and centralized; that wage rate ranges are uniform for the four Globe District stores; and that during the past year 12 district employees were permanently transferred from one store to another within the district. The Regional Director, relying on the integration of Meldisco's facilities nationwide and the lack of local autonomy at the store level, concluded, in accord with Meldisco's position, that the Meldisco currently represented by another labor organization . Zale operates the jewelry department; Meldisco the shoe department . The automotive department. operated by Uniroyal Merchandising Company, is housed in a separate building, and the parties agree that its employees should be excluded from the unit herein . The grocery department is operated by Baton Rouge Discount, Inc., d/b/a Hinky Dinky, and its employees are currently represented by the Petitioner. 209 NLRB No. 22 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lease department employees at Baton Rouge may not be included in the requested unit at that location. However, he failed to consider other factors which, in our opinion, militate in favor of their inclusion in the Baton Rouge unit sought by the Petitioner. Thus, of prime significance is the fact that a joint employer relationship exists, as above found, between Globe and licensee Meldisco at the Baton Rouge store and that Globe under the lease agreement retains authority to control aspects of Meldisco's labor relations policies, especially as they affect other store employees.3 Moreover, although the Meldisco em- ployees in question clearly have interests in common with their counterparts at other Meldisco stores, particularly those sharing the same supervision with them in the Globe District,4 we note that their work location is geographically separate from other Mel- disco facilities (the next closest Globe District store is about 200 miles away), and they work in the same building as other requested employees and share common working conditions with them such as parking facilities, restrooms, telephone switchboard, PA system, and merchandise checkout procedures. In the circumstances, we find that the Meldisco employees share a substantial community of interest with selling and nonselling employees of Globe and Zale at Globe's Baton Rouge store and that a unit combining such employees, as requested by the Petitioner, is appropriate.-5 We therefore find that the following employees constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of 3 Such control is evidenced by the provisions of the license agreement which give Globe the power to discharge employees of Meldisco's lease department and to put into effect unilaterally, at any time during the times of the agreement, rules and regulations pertaining to sales, operational, merchandising and pricing practices. 4 As noted below, we do not resolve here the question whether the department manager of Meldisco's Baton Rouge operation participates in the supervision of employees in his department but permit him to vote subject to challenge 5 See Bargain Town USA. of Puerto Rico, Inc, 162 NLRB 1145. There, as in Frostco Super Save Stores, Inc, 138 NLRB 125, cited by the Regional Director, the Board, while finding that requested discount store units excluding one or more lease or licensed departments were appropriate (on collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and all regular part-time selling and nonselling retail store employees of the Employer at its retail operation known as Globe Shopping City at 5905 Florida Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, including employees of the license departments operating under license agreements with Zale-Service Louisiana, Inc., and Meldisco, Division of Melville Shoe Corporation; excluding employees of Uniroyal Merchandising Company, Inc.: employees of Baton Rouge Discount, Inc., d/b/a Hinky Dinky; pharmacists and pharmacist interns; the Globe store manager, hard line manager, soft line manager, inventory control manager, office manager, drug depart- ment manager, appliance department manager, Sun Room manager, camera department manag- er, and management trainees; the Zale Service Louisiana, Inc., store manager; seasonal and temporary employees, office clerical employees, store dectectives and guards, and supervisiors as defined in the Act.6 Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director in order that he may open and count the ballots impounded by our Order dated October 31, 1973, including the challenged ballots cast by employees of the Zale and Meldisco lease departments, pursuant to our Decision on Review, and take such further steps as he deems necessary in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. the basis of facts demonstrating that the employees in the excluded departments shared separate and distinct interests ), also found that a broader unit including employees of such departments might also be appropriate 6 Although the Regional Director found that Meldisco's Globe District manager exercised immediate supervision and control over all district employees, he made no specific finding as to whether or not the department manager in Meldisco's Baton Rouge operation was a supervisor as defined in the Act in view of his exclusion of the entire department However, inasmuch as the department manager is the only representative of Meldisco at that location and the record in our view is insufficient to enable us to determine his status, we shall permit him to vote subject to challenge.