Credit Bureau of Greater Boston, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CREDIT BUREAU or GREATER BOSTON, INC., EMPLOYER
and UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3./76.-Decided April 15,1947
Stoneman and Chandler, by Cllr. Louis Chandler, of Bostoi, Mass.,
for the Employer.
Grant and Angoff, by Dlr. Harold B. Roitman, of Boston, Mass.,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Douglas J. Hanna, of Boston, Mass., for the Intervenor.
lllr. David C. Sachs, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Boston,
Massachusetts, on January 10, 1947, before Robert E. Greene, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Ruling upon the
Employer's motion to dismiss was reserved by the hearing officer for
the consideration of the Board. For reasons set forth in Section IV
herein, the motion is hereby denied. The Employer's request for
oral argument is also denied' inasmuch as the record, in our opinion,
adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Credit Bureau of Greater Boston, Inc., is a corporation organized
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, having its
office and principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. It is
engaged primarily in the business of preparing, buying and selling
credit and personnel reports. In addition, it operates a Collection
Department and makes investigations of a specialized type, such as
character investigations.
73 N. L. R. B., No. 80.
410
CREDIT BUREAU OF GREATER BOSTON, INC. 411
The Employer has approximately 3,200 customers , of which ap-
proximately 1,150 are situated within the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts , and 2,050 are situated outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts . Of the customers located outside Massachusetts,
approximately 1,300 are credit bureaus affiliated with a trade associa-
tion known as Associated Credit Bureaus of America . The Employer
is the local representative for this association and, in addition, is the
local agent for Credit Bureau Reports, Inc., a national reporting
concern with whom it has a sales agreement establishing rates, policy
and procedure , and methods of payment for servicing and receiving
service from the various member credit bureaus.
Gross income of the Employer for the year ending August 1946
amounted to approximately $221,000, of which $39,000 , or approxi-
mately 17.6 percent, was received from out-of-State subscribers. Dur-
ing the same period the Employer received approximately 350,000
requests for services , more than 30 percent of which was from out-of-
State customers.
Subscribers to the services of the Employer include department
stores, manufacturing concerns, national oil companies , financial and
insurance institutions , and other businesses engaged in interstate
commerce.
During the same period the Employer purchased supplies consisting
principally of forms and other office materials from points outside
Massachusetts, valued in excess of $7,000. The Employer during the
same period also purchased from other credit bureaus located outside
Massachusetts credit and personnel " reports whose value was in
excess of $60,000.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
Office Employees International Union, herein called the Intervenor,
-is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer , within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all the Employer's office,
technical and clerical employees at its Boston, Massachusetts, office,
including the head bookkeeper and the assistant bookkeepers, but
excluding outside collectors and outside salesmen, the secretary to the
manager , executive and all other supervisory employees. The Inter-
venor apparently agrees with the position of the Petitioner. The
Employer contends, primarily, that none of its employees can prop-
erly be found to be within a unit appropriate for collective bar-
gaining because they are all engaged in work that is "confidential,"
and that the employees in- its Reporting Department especially
should be excluded for this reason. The Employer also seeks the
exclusion of the head bookkeeper and the assistant bookkeepers.
In addition the Employer urges that no valid reason exists for the
exclusion of outside collectors and outside salesmen.
A. large part of the business conducted by the Employer consists
of the preparation of credit, personnel and other miscellaneous re-
ports for its subscribers. A credit report is drawn to assist a business
firm in determining whether to extend credit to an individual, where-
as a personnel report is used by an employer who is about to hire an
applicant for a job. These reports contain, among other things, in-
formation as to the earnings of the person under investigation and
the opinion of his current employer as to his efficiency and his pros-
pects of continued employment. We find no merit in the Employer's
contention that none of its employees, virtually all of whom have ac-
cess to this material, are entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Act
because this information is regarded as "confidential." The Em-
ployer's employees are all warned against divulging information ob-
tained in the course of their duties under penalty of discharge and
each employee is obliged to sign a written pledge of secrecy. Should
an employee betray the confidence placed in him by the Employer, he
would be subject to such disciplinary action as the Employer might.
see fit to impose.2 Equally unavailing, in our opinion, is the Employ-
2 Matter of Remington Rand, Incorporated , 71 N. L . R B 626 ; Matter of Sears Roebuck
and Co., 66 N . L. R. B. 285 ( holding as to credit department ) , Matter of General Chemical
Co., 64 N. L R B 357, 361.
2 Associated Press v. N. L. R B., 301 U. S. 103, 132.
We perceive no validity to the suggestion advanced by the Employer that membership
in a labor organization is in itself incompatible with the obligations of fidelity owed to the
Employer by its employees.
CREDIT BUREAU OF GREATER BOSTON, INC. 413
er's argument that the business concerns which furnish the Employer
with the information contained in its reports would be reluctant to
disclose the facts desired if the person requesting the data were a mem-
ber of a labor organization. Although this claim is to a large extent
conjectural, even if it were established as a fact, the possible loss of
business to an employer does not afford an adequate reason for de-
priving its employees of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Act.
Our practice is, it is true, to exclude from units of rank and file em-
ployees such employees who assist and act in a confidential capacity
to persons who exercise "managerial" functions in the field of labor
relations with respect to the Employer's own employees 3 This prin-
ciple has no application to the facts disclosed in the instant case.
The reports do not generally relate to the Employer's own employees'
Moreover, even though the reports contain information as to rate of
pay and working efficiency, this material does not directly bear on
labor relations policy.
For the same considerations, we reject as untenable the Employer's
argument that the employees in its Reporting Department, who do
the actual work in obtaining, assembling and writing up the material
in the reports, should be excluded from a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining I
The head bookkeeper: The head bookkeeper works under the super-
vision of the head of the Accounting Department, whose place she
takes when the latter is absent. She has charge of the books of the
Employer, including the pay-roll records, but does not supervise the
work of the other employees in the Accounting Department. About a
dozen times during the course of a year she is called upon by the
manager to report on the Employer's past practice in the handling
of individual situations such as whether to pay a particular employee
for time-off. She does not make decisions of this nature, nor does she
otherwise participate in making such decisions, except to cite previous
instances. , Although she has advance knowledge of prospective
changes in wage rates, it is clear from the record that this is mainly
for the purpose of enabling the necessary changes to be made in the
pay-roll records. We are of the opinion that the duties of the head
bookkeeper are not such as to warrant her exclusion from the bargain-
8 Matter of Ford Motor Company, 66 N L R B. 1317, 1322
' Matter of Remington Rand, Incorporated , 71 N. L . R. B 626
The evidence shows that the Employer has occasion to prepare reports on its own em-
ployees at the request of its subscribers Since, as we point out above, the reports do not
touch upon labor relations policy this fact is of little significance
6 The fact that such employees in the course of their duties have access to certain infor-
mation ordinarily withheld from other employees is not of controlling weight
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing unit either as a supervisory or a confidential employee, and we
shall accordingly include her.6
The assistant bookkeeper: The Employer's two assistant book-
keepers are engaged in maintaining subsidiary ledgers and making
computations for pay-roll purposes. Although they may have knowl-
edge of wage changes a few days in advance, this does not constitute
an adequate reason for their exclusion, and we shall therefore include
them.
Outside collectors: The Collection Department of the Employer is
engaged in collecting delinquent accounts of its customers. The de-
partment consists of trace men, inside collectors and outside collectors.
The trace men endeavor to locate missing debtors. The inside col-
lectors obtain payments by the use of telephone and correspondence.
The outside collectors do so by personal contact with the debtor at his
home or place of work. The trace men and inside collectors are within
the bargaining unit sought by the Petitioner and no party requests
their specific exclusion. Although the outside collectors work outside
the office, their work is, nevertheless, closely allied with the work of
the other employees in the Collection Department, and is virtually the
same as that of the inside collectors. Accordingly, we shall include
the outside collectors.7
Outside salesmen: The outside salesmen sell the services of the Em-
ployer to prospective customers; their work is performed wholly out-
side the office. As their functions are not directly related to the work
performed in the office, they will be excluded from the bargaining
unit.
We find that all office, technical and clerical employees of the Em-
ployer's Boston, Massachusetts, office, including the head bookkeeper,
assistant bookkeepers and the outside collectors, but excluding the
secretary to the manager, outside salesmen, executives and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION"
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Credit Bureau of Greater Bos-
0 Matter of Sears Roebuck and Co, 66 N L R B. 285, 288 (Auditing Department) ; Mat-
ter of The Barrett Division. Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 65 N L R B 903, 907
(Pav-roll Department) , Matter of Union Switch and Signal Company, 63 N L R. B 974,
980 (Pay clerks)
° Since the inclusion of the outside collectors is but a minor modification of the unit
requested by the Petitioner, we shall not dismiss the petition as urged by the Employer
6 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
CREDIT BUREAU OF GREATER BOSTON, INC. 415
ton, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the First Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections
203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including
employees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by United Office and Professional Work-
ers of America, CIO, or by Office Employees International Union,
AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
739926-47-vol. 73-28