Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

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.