Carbondale Retail Druggists' Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1021 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

CARBONDALE RETAIL DRUGGISTS' ASSOCIATION 1021
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 756 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and
its Agent, Robert Palmer , violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) (B) of the Act by
inducing and encouraging employees of Gable Electric Service to refuse to install
cables prefabricated by The Martin Company.
2. The inducement and encouragement of its members by said Union not to
accept employment by Gable constituted a refusal to refer applicants for em-
ployment as provided for in the Union 's area agreement in violation of Section
8(b) (4) (ii ) (B) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Carbondale Retail Druggists ' Association and District 50, United
Mine Workers of America , Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-3969.
June 5, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert H. Kubie, hearing
officer. The hearing officers' rulings made at thehearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The Employer, organized about 1948, is an association which in-
cludes among its members all retail drugstores doing business in
Carbondale, Illinois, being seven in number.' The Petitioner seeks a
multiemployer unit composed, with certain exclusions, of the employ-
ees of all the seven drugstores. The Intervenor 2 contends that only
single-store units are appropriate and that the petition should be dis-
missed on the ground that none of the employers operating the indi-
vidual stores, alone, meets the Board's standard for asserting juris-
diction over retail stores. The parties stipulated that as to six of the
seven drugstores, each does an annual gross business in excess of
$100,000, but less than $250,000, and that of the annual gross business
of each store, 90 percent "consisted of purchases of pharmaceutical
goods, toiletries, and other goods for resale at retail from points out-
side the State of Illinois." The parties also stipulated that the seventh
store does an annual gross volume of business of less than $50,000, of
which approximately 90 percent "was purchased from points outside
of the State of Illinois." It is clear, and we find, that none of the
1 The following drugstores are members of the Association : Murdale Drugs, University
Drugs, Lawrence Drugs, Borger 's Pharmacy , Hewitt Drugs , Atwood Drugs , and Carbondale
Walgreen Agency Drug Store.
2 Local 736, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, intervened at the hear-
ing on the basis of a card showing of inteerst.
131 NLRB No. 119.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individual drugstores involved - herein, alone, meets the Board's
$500,000 gross volume of business standard for assertion of jurisdic-
tion over retail stores.' The Employer, consisting of all seven stores,
does meet the Board's retail standard for assertion of jurisdiction.
However, the Employer may not be utilized as an entity for the pur-
pose of asserting jurisdiction unless the employees of the seven in-
dividual drugstores constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining.4 We turn then to a determination of the appro-
priate unit.
The Petitioner and the Employer contend that the multiemployer
unit is appropriate. As already indicated, the Intervenor, on the
other hand, contends that only single-store units are appropriate. The
Board has held that single-employer units are presumptively appro-
priate unless there is a controlling history of collective bargaining on
a multiemployer basis.5 In support of their contention that the multi-
employer unit is appropriate, the Petitioner and the Employer rely
on the fact that, in 1949, after two or three members of the Employer
were approached by a representative of a union, not a party herein,
the Employer appointed a representative who met on two occasions
with the Union. However, being unable to reach agreement, no con-
tract was executed. The Petitioner and the Employer also rely on the
fact that, on or about August 22, 1960, after the Intervenor had de-
manded recognition as representative of the employees of some mem-
bers of the Employer, the members of the Employer decided that they
would act jointly in negotiating with labor organizations and they
authorized the Employer to act on their behalf in dealing with unions.
However, the Employer did not negotiate with any labor organi-
zation pursuant to this authorization. There is no claim that there
has been any other bargaining history on a multiemployer basis as to
the employees sought herein. Thus, the only bargaining on a multi-
employer basis as to the employees involved herein was remote in time,
and did not result in a contract on a multiemployer basis. In these
circumstances, we find that the bargaining history relied on by the Pe-
titioner and the Employer does not warrant a finding that the multi-
employer unit is appropriate.6
The Petitioner and the Employer contend further that, even in the
absence of a multiemployer bargaining history, the multiemployer unit
is appropriate because the Petitioner and the Employer agree to the
appropriateness of the multiemployer unit and no party is seeking
single-store units. In support of this contention, the Petitioner and
the Employer rely on Western Association of Engineers, Architects
9 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co , 122 NLRB 88
4 Kenosha Liquor Company, et al, 104 NLRB 189, footnote 7. Cf American Publishing
.Corporation , et at., 121 NLRB 115
6 Arden Farms, et at., 117 NLRB 318
6 See Macy's Can Francisco , and Seligman & Latz, Inc., jointly, 120 NLRB 69, 71.
BRUNO'S FOOD STORE, INCORPORATED 1023
and Surveyors' and Calumet Contractors Association.' We find that
the rule stated in those cases is inapplicable to the facts in the instant
case. In those cases, the Board expressly found that no other union
was seeking to represent employees on a single-employer basis. Here,
however, at the hearing, the Intervenor expressly asked the Board, in
the event it did not dismiss the petition, to direct elections in the single-
store units. The Intervenor also asked to appear on the ballot, if such
elections were directed, and it has made a showing of interest sufficient
to support a representation petition as to three drugstores which are
members of the Employer.' Moreover, in the summer of 1960, the
Intervenor demanded recognition as representative of the employees
of Murdale Drugs and Lawrence Drugs, and when such recognition
was refused, it commenced to picket these stores, and this picketing
continued, except for a brief period, at least until the time of the hear-
ing. In view of the affirmative efforts by the Intervenor to represent
employees of members of the Employer on a single-store basis,10 we
find the fact that the Petitioner and the Employer agree to multiem-
ployer bargaining is insufficient basis to establish the appropriateness
of the multiemployer unit. Accordingly, under all the circumstances,
we find that the multiemployer unit is inappropriate. As the multi-
employer unit is inappropriate and as the individual employers do
not meet the Board's jurisdictional standards, we shall dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
7 101 NLRB 64.
8121 NLRB 80.
8 Lawrence Drugs, Murdale Drugs , and University Drugs.
10 We find no merit in the argument , implicit in the Employer's brief, that the multi-
employer unit is appropriate under the circumstances here in view of the fact that the
individual drugstores do not meet the Board' s jurisdictional standards and thus the
Intervenor could not obtain , through Board processes , representation of the employees on
a single-store basis . As the Intervenor has actively attempted to represent employees on a
single -store basis and could achieve such recognition by means of voluntary agreement or
through whatever State processes exist , it is immaterial that the Board would not direct
elections in the single- store units.
Bruno's Food Store, Incorporated and Local 1657, Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO and Local No. 442, Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 10-RC-4909 and
10-RC-4921. June 6, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Kathryn M.
Rossback, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
131 NLRB No. 136.