Super X Drugs of Illinois, Inc.

1114 DECISIONS O F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Super X Drugs of Illinois, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union, Local 1550, chartered by Retail Clerks International Association, AFGCIO, Petitioner. Case 13-RC-14393 December 12. 1977 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On June 22, 1977, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate a unit of employees employed by the Employer at its store located at 7601 South Cicero Avenue. "Ford City." Chicago, Illinois. Thereafter. 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, contending that a unit limited to the Ford City store is inappropriate. On July 21, 1977, the National Labor Relations Board granted the request for review and stayed the e!ection pending decision on review. The Employer requested that its brief to the Regional Director be considered as a brief on review and the Petitioner filed a brief. 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 reviewed the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, including the briefs of the parties, and makes the following findings: the Employer. an Ohio corpora- tion, operates a nationwide chain of retail drug stores through administrative subdivisions known as dis- tricts; these districts are headed by a district manager, to whom individual store managers report. The Northern Illinois District contains 28 stores and is supervised by District Manager Mason and his assistant. Five of these stores are located in Cook County, Illinois: the Ford City store in Chicago, three other stores in Chicago which are 2, 7, and 10 miles from Ford City, and a fifth store in Skokie, 25 miles away. The Petitioner seeks only the Ford City store, employing 19 employees, while the Employer asserts that the smallest appropriate unit should consist of all 4 Chicago stores, employing 53 employees, or alternatively all 5 Cook County stores, employing 65. - ' ZCL L V - G I I fir-,", In,., ;3& ; ; L Y ;AL , , I ~ ~ , , . , u u ~ Urug Cornpan): Incorporared, 169 NLRB 877 (1968). Although employees have been h~red without bemg personally There is no history of bargaining for any of these stores? although there has been collective bargaining in a single-store unit for another store in the district. In finding that the presumptive appropriateness of a single-store unit had not been rebutted here,l the Regional Director relied primarily on his conclusion that the individual store manager has substantial autonomy in the operation of the stores, which in his opinion was evidenced by the infrequency of District Manager Mason's visits to the store. We disagree. The Employer's operations are highly centralized and all of the stores are similarly laid out, displaying and selling the same merchandise at the same price. The district manager determines the mode of advertising and the prices. Operating hours for all stores in the district are established by the district manager. He also deter- mines the number of employees needed per position, the particular hours they are to work, and the total hours to be worked by each employee in each position. The store managers determine which employee will work the hours as budgeted and they also authorize employees to work the 8-16 hours of overtime allotted by the district manager. The Employer's personnel records are maintained at the district's central ofice, while employment applications are kept at the individual stores. When a vacancy occurs, the district manager places an advertisement in the paper, giving the individual store address. In the event of a skilled position vacancy, the district manager's phone number is alsc given, as he will conduct the initial interview. The district manager and store managers decide which of several applicants to interview and both may conduct reference checks, but only the district manager sees the results of polygraph tests, which all applicants take. The store manager alone may interview applicants for unskilled positions, but the final decision as to whether to hire rests with the district manager.2 If there are more qualified applicants than there are openings at a particular store, some may be hired at other district stores. An applicant's residence is not a factor in the hiring process. The employees at the five Cook County stores periodically attend training sessions and the store managers attend joint meetings on occasion. Store managers may reprimand or terminate an employee only after having discussed the issue with the district manager and receiving his authorization to do so. Similarly, the district manager must approve all leaves of absence, promotions, and pay raises. Raises are based on the merit review system, which is carried out by the district manager, who ~n~erviewed by the &strict manager, nonetheless he makes the final decisions on all h~rer. 233 NLRB No. 163 SUPER X DRUGS OF ILLINOIS 1115 observes the employees during vislts and discusse: their work with the store manager Documentary evidence shows that. during a 14- month period. there were 21 instances of temporary interchange among the 5 Cook County stores and 3 permanent transfers. The district manager further testified that these figures represented only about one-half of the totai empioyee interchange dunng the period. There is aiso evidence that on occasion merchandise is transferred among the stores. District Manager Mason visits every store in the district on afi average of once every 2 to 3 weeks, devoting 70 percent of his time to these visits, and spending from 4 hours to an entire day at each store. He prepares a weekly itinerary showmg which stores he to visit. and if he must deviate from his schedule he notifies the store manager at the store he was tc visit and gives him the phone number at which he can be reached. He also gives his secretaq this information and other store managers and empioyees can call him while he 1s on a visit. I t appears that Mason's assistant aiso visits stores. The visits are conducted to ascertain whether the srore manager is running the store in accordance with both the district manager's directions and with established business practices. The district manager checks on merchandising: notes the general appear- ance of the store and its advertising and price policies; and discusses problems with store inanagers and with employees. including their grievances. In view of the foregoing, w% find that the autonomy of the store manager with respect to personnel matrers is severely circumscribed by the authority retained by the district manager. While the latter's visits to the store may be characterized as infrequent, it is clear that the modus operandi of store operations provides for ready telephonic communication be- tween store managers and the district manager with respect to any problems arislng at the store level. In these circumstances. and in vlew of the geographic proximiry of the Employer's Cook County stores. and the-interchange between these stores, we find that the presumptive appropriateness of s single- store unit has been rebutted. In reaching this conclusion. we are not unmindful of the fact that one store in the district has bargained as a separate unit and that the Board has found, in two earlier .' See Super X Drugs ojlliinors, Inc., Case 13-RC-12751. review denied Aupu.~' 9. 1972. and Case !3-RC-13140. revlew den!ea October I?, 1973. proceedings: that the instant store constituted a separate appropriate unit.3 However, with respect to the iatter. it is noted that since that decision the district manager has exercised more authority over the individual stores' personnel matters and that employees are now hired for the various stores by the district manager without regard to their residence or proxirfity to any given store. As we have found the requested unit to be inappropriate, and as the Petitioner has made no alternative unit request, we shall dismiss the peti- tion." ORDER Ir is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is. dismissed. CHAIRMAN FANNING, dissenting: As I agree with the Regional Director that the presumptive appropriateness of a single-store unit has not been rebutted herein, I dissent. The record indicates that the individual store manager enjoys substantial autonomy in the store's operation. Not only does he determine, within a certain framework. what hours each employee will work as well as overtime, but he has hired salesclerks, stockers, and part-time employees without their having been personally interviewed by the district manager. Indeed. the store manager's autonomy and considerable discretion is necessitated by the infre- quency of the visits to each store by the district manager, vir, once every 2 to 3 weeks. My colleagues, in citing the recent minor changes in the Employer's personnel policy, deviate from two earlier proceedings in which the Board found that the employees in the same store involved herein consti- tuted an appropriate unit. As these employees contmue to be employed under the day-to-day immediate supervision of the local store manager. I would find that the Employer's centralized opera- tion. featuring its itinerant district manager, does not overcome the presumptive appropriateness of the single-store unit. Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director: I would direct an election in the unit sought. ' Tlus actlon shall not be construed as passing on the Employer's affirmatwe unit contention.