Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 9 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

DUN & BRADSTREET, INCORPORATED 9
Dun & Bradstreet, Incorporated and Local 239,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Case 2-RC-15533
November 3, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING 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 Haywood E. Banks
of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
close of the hearing, the Regional Director for Region
2 transferred this case to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs in support of their respective positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, 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.
3. Dun & Bradstreet, Incorporated, is a Delaware
corporation with executive offices in New York City
and various operational offices located throughout
the United States, Canada, and other countries. Its
activities include the collection, compilation, editing,
;and dissemination of information in the areas of
credit, finance, marketing, sales, economics, educa-
tion, and research. These activities are operationally
divided among three subordinate entities, only one of
which is involved in this proceeding. This entity, the
Business Information Division (BID) is primarily
engaged in gathering, evaluating, and interpreting
financial information on all types of mercantile
businesses for the benefit of subscribers to its various
services. The Employer avers that, in providing these
services, it maintains credit reports on approximately
3 million businesses throughout the world. The senior
vice president of operations (BID) is responsible for
all field operations, including all aspects of credit
reporting.
Within the United States, BID is functionally and
operationally divided into nine regions patterned
geographically after those of the Federal Reserve
System. Each region is under the direction of a
regional manager or regional vice president who is
responsible for all activities of the Employer within
the region. He is assisted by specialized managers for
each area of responsibility, including a regional
(credit) reporting manager. Each region, in turn, is
subdivided into district, branch, and area offices
which vary only in the size and scope of their
activities. Branch and area offices, however, are
administratively attached to district offices which are
organized along lines similar to the regional offices.
Credit reporters, who are assigned to the various
district, branch, and area offices, perform the basic
tasks necessary in the collection, evaluation, and
interpretation of credit information.
The Petitioner seeks to represent all credit reporters
employed by the Employer at its several specified
offices located in New York and New Jersey. The
Employer opposes the petition, contending, inter alia,
that union representation would involve these report-
ers in an irreconcilable conflict of interest and
division of loyalties and would result in an adverse
impact upon commerce. Specifically, the Employer
argues that confidentiality of information and sources
is an absolute prerequisite in the compilation of credit
reports, that unauthorized disclosures to third parties,
including labor unions, would eliminate sources of
information or discourage those sources from reveal-
ing that information on which commercial credit is
based, and that the resulting doubt cast upon the
value of the Employer's credit reports would tend to
discourage the extension of credit, thereby obstruct-
ing the free flow of commerce. These arguments are
predicated upon the Employer's assumption that
loyalty to a union would cause credit reporters to
violate their employer's rules respecting confidentiali-
ty and divulge "privileged" information to that union.
We find no merit in these arguments or in, the
assumption upon which they are based. The law has
clearly rejected the notion that membership in a labor
organization is in itself incompatible with the obliga-
tions of fidelity owed to an employer by its
employees.' To the contrary, employees placed in
positions of trust by employers engaged in a wide
variety of financial activities have exercised their
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Act without
I Credit Bureau of Greater BOstoi, Inc., 73 NLRB 410, In 2.
194 NLRB No. 2
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
raising the spectre of divided loyalty or compromised
trust.2
The Employer asserts that the unauthorized acquisi-
tion of confidential credit reports by unions and
others has in the past caused some sources to withhold
information previously furnished. However, the
Employer cites no case in which an employee was
alleged to have compromised the report in question.
Where responsibility for unauthorized disclosure was
indeed fixed, the offender was shown to have been a
subscriber. In sum, that credit reports have been
compromised in the past and that the Employer has
taken stringent countermeasures to deal with the
problem suggests that the problem itself is an
anticipated hazard arising from the_ nature of the
Employer's operation. In any event, such disclosures
lend no credence to the Employer's suggestion that
union representation of the employees here involved
will cause increased doubt as to the confidential
nature of the Employer's operation, restrict its access
to financial data, and give rise to a "suspicion as to the
completeness and accuracy" of its credit reports. Such
conjecture, even if established as fact, does not afford
an adequate reason for depriving employees of their
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Act .3
For the same reasons we reject as untenable the
Employer's alternative contention that, in any event,
the Petitioner herein is disqualified from representing
the employees in question. In support of this conten-
tion, the Employer adduced evidence to the effect that
over 90 percent of the employers whose employees are
represented by the Petitioner are themselves the
subjects of Dun & Bradstreet credit reports. In such a
situation, according to the Employer, the reluctance
of a company to reveal information to credit reporters
who are represented by the same union as its own
employees would be substantially greater. Moreover,
the Employer asserts, the divided loyalty and conflict
of interest present would be materially increased if
credit reporters believe they are dealing with informa-
tion in which the Petitioner has a direct and
immediate interest. Therefore, the Employer argues
that it should be required to recognize and bargain
only with a labor organization which admits to
membership credit reporters exclusively and is not
affiliated with any other labor organization which
admits to membership or represents employees other
than credit reporters.
While it is true that the Board may reasonably limit
2 See, e.g. , Wells Fargo Bank, 179 NLRB No. 79, Amalgamated Bank of
New York, 92 NLRB 545 (bank tellers and clerks); Lansing Automakers
Federal Credit Union, 150 NLRB 1122 (clerk tellers, loan interviewers, loan
distributors); General Finance Corporation, 88 NLRB 1031 (collectors, new
business salesmen); Harold P. Goodbody, et aL, d/b/a/ Goodbody & Co, 182
NLRB No 16 (brokerage house registered representatives).
3 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 80 NLRB 56; Credit Bureau of Greater Boston,
Inc., supra
the choice of a bargaining representative in effectuat-
ing the policies of the Act,4 we find, for the reasons
previously stated, no justification in this case for
imposing such restrictions. Further, there is no
suggestion, born of the Employer's contentions, that
the Petitioner, in seeking to represent the credit
reporters here involved, might be motivated by any
purpose other than that of protecting and advancing
solely the interests of those employees.5
In view of the foregoing, we find that a question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Sections 9(c)(l) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all credit
reporters, excluding all other employees, professional
employees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act,6 employed by the Employer at the
following office locations: 99 Church Street, New
York, New York (New York district office); 23 West
John Street, Hicksville, New York (Hicksville district
office); 371 Merrick Road, Rockville Center, New
York ("Queens" area office);, 90 Halsted Street, East
Orange, New Jersey ("Newark" district office); and at
Maywood (district office) and Freehold (area office),
New Jersey. These offices are, with the exception of
the Freehold area office, all located within the
standard metropolitan labor area of New York City.
The Freehold office is, however, administratively
attached to the Newark district office which is within
that metropolitan area. They constitute approximate-
ly one-half of all the operational offices within the
Employer's second region,- which encompasses the
entire State of New York and the northern part of
New Jersey.
The Petitioner asserts that each of the aforemen-
tioned offices is a complete, self-contained business
operation and that, collectively, they form a geo-
graphical entity appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
The Employer disagrees, contending that the degree
of control it exercises at the regional office level over
the day-to-day operations of the district, area, and
branch offices renders inappropriate any bargaining
unit other than one embracing its entire second
region. However, the Employer does concede that a
unit comprised of all offices within the greater New
York metropolitan area, such as the Petitioner seeks,
would be appropriate if each of the district offices
4 N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 331 U.S. 416, 422
(1947).
5 Cf McDonald's of Canoga Park Calif., 162 NLRB 367; Bausch & Lomb
Optical Company, 108 NLRB 1555.
6 The parties stipulated that reporting managers, reporting instructors,
reporting supervisors , management trainees , and the staff reporting
consultant be excluded from any bargaining unit found appropriate as
supervisors and/or managerial employees.
DUN & BRADSTREET, INCORPORATED 11
therein were a distinct entity appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
As previously mentioned, each region is under the
direction of a regional manager or vice president who
is responsible for all activities of the Employer within
that region. The regional manager is assisted by
various specialized managers. One of these assistants,
the regional reporting manager, is in charge of all
aspects of credit reporting within the region. This
includes overall control of credit reporters assigned to
the various district, area, and branch offices within
the region. The regional reporting manager sets the
standards governing, but shares responsibility for,
such matters as salaries, promotions, grievances,
workloads, vacations, employment standards, and
discharges. He is in daily telephone communication
with and pays frequent visits to the subordinate
offices, closely following the progress of credit
reporters and the content of their reports. The
regional office constantly monitors activities at the
subordinate levels by reviewing standardized prod-
uction, salary, and workload reports which are filed
by the district offices on a regular and frequent basis.
Each district office within the Employer's second
region is headed by a manager who is directly
accountable to the regional manager. Area managers 7
report directly to the district manager of the district
office to which they are administratively attached.
District and area managers are assisted by specialized
managers who are, however, under the control of their
equivalent at the next higher level. The specialized
manager responsible for all credit reporting opera-
tions at these subordinate offices is the district or area
reporting manager. He directs the activities of the
reporting instructors and reporting supervisors, who
are the immediate supervisors of the credit reporters.
The district reporting managers, here involved,
guided by regional and national office directives,
exercise substantial control over the wages and
working conditions of the credit reporters within their
respective districts. They are responsible for hiring
and training credit reporters. They have authority to
increase the salary of credit reporters up to $10,000
per annum and promote these employees through the
beginning and intermediate credit reporter classifica-
tions. They are responsible for allocating work
assignments among credit reporters and take final
action on all requests for vacations not exceeding 1
week in duration. They are encouraged to resolve
grievances which originate within their respective
districts. Finally, district reporting managers effec-
tively participate in the selection of credit reporters
for management trainee programs.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Employer's
operations are highly centralized and its procedures
integrated, and that a regionwide unit would be an
appropriate unit. However, we do not agree with the
Employer's contention that a regionwide unit would
be the only appropriate unit in the circumstances of
this case.
To the contrary, we are persuaded, in agreement
with the Petitioner, that the district offices here
involved have a meaningful identity as distinct
economic units and that the employees in question,
who experience minimal temporary interchange
between these offices, constitute a homogeneous,
identifiable group with a sufficient community of
interest to warrant their inclusion in a bargaining unit
such as the Petitioner seeks. As described above,
district reporting managers are the Employer's princi-
pal credit reporting representatives at levels subordi-
nate to the regional office. Their roles are more than
ministerial. They are responsible for carrying out
company policies and directives, using discretion and
initiative. They are responsible for hiring credit
reporters and for scheduling work assignments and
vacations. They evaluate the performance of employ-
ees and exercise substantial control over their reten-
tion, promotion, and the manner in which they
perform their work. Accordingly, we find that the
offices in question function sufficiently as distinct
entities to constitute separate units for collective-
bargaining purposes.
The offices sought by the Petitioner are all located
within 30 miles of the New York district office and,
with the exception of the Freehold area office, are
encompassed within the greater New York metropoli-
tan area. The Freehold office is, however, attached to
the Newark district office which is within that
metropolitan area. The Employer concedes that a unit
of all the aforementioned offices would be appropri-
ate if each of the district offices involved were a
distinct entity itself appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. We have so held. In these
circumstances, we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All credit reporters, excluding all other employees,
professional employees, watchmen, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, employed by the
Employer at the following office locations: 99 Church
Street, New York, New York (New York district
office); 23 West John Street, Hicksville, New York
(Hicksville district office); 371 Merrick Road, Rock-
ville Center, New York ("Queens" area office); 90
Halsted Street, East Orange, New Jersey ("Newark"
7 There are no branch offices within the geographical area covered by
the instant petition.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
district office); and at Staten Island , New York
("Brooklyn" area office); 8 Maywood (district office)
and Freehold (area office), New Jersey.
8 We are administratively advised that the Employer has, subsequent to
the hearing held herein, commenced operations at its newly constructed
"Brooklyn" area office. This office is administratively attached to the New
York district office. It is clearly a part of the unit herein found appropriate.
9 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.LR.B v . Wyman-Gordon Co , 394 U.S.
{Direction of Election9 omitted from publication.]
759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
containing the names ' and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 2 within 7 days of
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.