Raley's, (2006)

Extract

---

Raley's, (2006)

Raley’s and Independent Drug Clerks Association

Raley’s (United Wholesalers & Retailers Union, Party to the Contract) and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 588, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union1

United Wholesalers & Retailers Union (Raley’s) and Chris Zicarelli and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 588, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Thomas Moore. Cases 20–CA–24973, 20–CA–25354, 20–CA–25649, 20–CA–26294, 20–CB–9623, 20–CB–9742, and 20–CB–9932

September 29, 2006

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Kirsanow

On November 29, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Timothy D. Nelson issued the attached decision.* The General Counsel and Charging Party United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 588 (Local 588) filed exceptions and supporting briefs; and Respondents Raley’s and United Wholesalers & Retailers Union (UWRU) filed cross-exceptions and supporting briefs. All parties also filed responding briefs to the opposing exceptions and reply briefs in support of their own exceptions.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3

As explained more fully below, we adopt the judge’s findings that (1) specific actions by Raley’s at some of its individual stores in September 1993 did not unlawfully assist UWRU, an independent union then named United Drug Center Employees Association (UDCEA);4 (2) Raley’s did not unlawfully assist UDCEA in September 19935 in obtaining a unit majority of signatures from Raley’s drug clerks authorizing UDCEA to represent them, and did not unlawfully recognize UDCEA;6 and (3) Raley’s and UDCEA lawfully entered into a collective-bargaining relationship and enforced UDCEA’s dues-paying requirements.7 Finally, we adopt the judge’s findings that the Respondents are not entitled to attorney fees from the General Counsel.

i. background

A. Events Preceding the Formation of UDCEA

The underlying dispute in this case, as limited by the parties’ exceptions, was the competition between Local 588 and UDCEA for the right to replace the Independent Drug Clerks Association (IDCA) as the bargaining representative for the drug clerks who worked in the pharmacy departments of Raley’s stores, after IDCA disclaimed interest in that representation on September 14, 1993.

By 1992, Local 588 represented the grocery employees in separate bargaining units at most of Raley’s stores. Beginning in October 1992, almost a year before the IDCA disclaimer, IDCA’s president, Gilbert Eidam, entered into an alliance with Local 588 whereby Local 588’s staff began to participate in IDCA’s negotiations with Raley’s for a new contract. At around that time, Local 588’s staff also attempted to make in-store contact with IDCA-represented drug clerks at many of Raley’s stores. On several occasions those attempts resulted in confrontations with store managers and the ejection of Local 588’s staff from stores.8 IDCA-represented drug clerks were divided on the subject of Local 588’s involvement, with some strongly favoring it and others, including Edwin (Ed) Wright, opposed. This internal division continued over the following year while IDCA, with Local 588’s assistance, continued to try to reach a new agreement with Raley’s.

On September 14, 1993, having failed to reach agreement on a new contract, IDCA President Eidam sent a letter to Raley’s management disclaiming IDCA’s interest in representing the drug clerks, “effective immediately.”9 The following day, immediately upon learning of the disclaimer, Ed Wright, one of the leaders of the faction opposed to Local 588’s ongoing involvement in the unit’s representation, decided to organize another independent union for the drug clerks and seek recognition on its behalf from Raley’s as IDCA’s successor. As the judge found, Wright called Raley’s management to inform it of his intention, and was told that Raley’s “would recognize the new organization if it could secure evidence...

See the full content of this document

---