Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 56 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of DUN & BRADSTREET, INC., EMPLOYER and THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-375.-Decided October 09, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 II herein, the motion is hereby denied.
The Employer's request for oral argument is also denied inasmuch
as the record and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with executive
offices in New York City and branch offices in the principal cities of
the United States and Canada. The Employer is a mercantile agency
engaged in the collection, compilation, editing, and publication of
basic financial and technical analyses of business industries. Reports
are furnished to subscribers, and a reference or rating book is pub-
lished by the Employer at periodic intervals and leased to subscribers.
The reference book is printed at Brooklyn, New York, in a printing
plant owned by the Employer. A substantial percentage of the ref-
erence books leased by the Employer to subscribers is shipped from
* Houston, Reynolds , and Gray.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 15.
56
DUN & BRADSTREET, INC. 57
New York into all other States of the United States. The annual
gross income of the Employer is in excess of $500,000.
Through the Employer's Business Information Division, services
in market analysis, distribution of products, and other similar research
projects are carried on for clients who contract for such service. The
Employer also serves the United States Government in the conduct
of numerous inquiries initiated by various Federal departments and
agencies. In the course of its operations, the Employer uses cable
and telegraph facilities extensively throughout the United States and
foreign countries.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act."
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.2
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.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all credit reporters em-
ployed in the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, office, excluding
executives, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors. The
Petitioner also indicated its willingness to accept the broader unit
contended for by the Employer, if its first requested unit is found
inappropriate by the Board. The Employer questions the propriety
of the requested unit on two grounds : (1) that the nature of the duties
performed by the reporters, and the information gathered, is of such
a nature that to allow the reporters to affiliate with a labor organiza-
1 Matter of Credit Bureau of Greater Boston, 73 N. L. R. B. 410.
2 Contrary to the Employer's contention, the American Federation of Labor, while not a
national or international labor organization within the meaning of Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act, is in this case a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act, because its purpose here is to deal with the Employer concerning the wages , hours,
and working conditions of the employees of the Employer. See Matter of American Fruit
Growers, incorporated, 75 N. L. R. B. 1157; Matter of S. W. Evans i6 Bon, 75 N. L. R. B.
811; cf. Matter of Northern Virginia Broadcasters , Inc., 75 N . L. R. B. 11; Matter of
Nob Litt-Bparks Industries , Inc., 76 N. L. It. B. 1230.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion would seriously affect commerce , and (2) that even if a unit of
its reporters could otherwise be deemed appropriate , the unit should
include all reporters in the Boston District as distinguished from
the Boston office.
( 1) With relation to the Employer's first contention
The Employer adduced considerable testimony indicating the al-
legedly confidential character of the information obtained by the
reporters in the performance of their duties . Contractual subscribers
to the Employer 's reporting system receive the information desired
by them pertaining to companies they are interested in by way of
special reports, which enumerate , among other things, background,
nature and location of business , financial information , credit rating
and operational data. The Employer contends , without having pre-
sented any factual evidence, that persons and companies would re-
fuse to furnish information to reporters if they were affiliated with
a labor organization . The Employer further argues that the with-
holding of information by persons , companies and subscribers , because
of the reporters ' affiliation with a labor union , would affect credit
relations in that information would not be available on which to base
credit, and that, accordingly , there would be a detrimental effect on
the commerce and business of the country . Inferentially , the Em-
ployer also contends that, if the reporters were unionized , certain
credit information may become available to labor unions.
We find no merit in any of these contentions . As we stated in
Matter of Credit Bureau of Greater Boston, 73 N. L. R. B. 410, 412,
413:
. .. The Employer's reporters are all warned against divulg-
ing information obtained in the course of their duties . Should
a reporter 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, even summary dismissal . Equally un-
availing, in our opinion , is the Employer's argument that the
business concerns which furnish the Employer with the infor-
mation contained in its reports would be reluctant to disclose the
facts desired if the person requesting the data were a member
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 the Employer does not afford an adequate reason
for depriving its employees of the fundamental rights guaran-
teed by the Act.
Our practice is, it is true , to exclude from units of rank and
file employees such employees who assist and act in a "confiden-
DUN & BRADSTREET, INC. 59
tial" capacity to persons who exercise "managerial" functions in
the field of labor relations with respect to the Employer's own
employees.3 This principle, however, has no application to the
facts disclosed in the instant case. The reports in the instant
case never relate to the Employer's own employees.
We find that the reporters are employees within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act. As such the statute guarantees to them the
right to engage in self-organization for the purposes of collective
bargaining. This Board is without power to deny them that right.
(2) With relation to the Employer's second contention
The Employer's business is organized on a regional basis, its regions
corresponding substantially with the regional set-up of the Federal
Reserve Board. The regions are divided into districts. Each dis-
trict is a complete, integrated, operating unit of the business. The
Boston District, as distinguished from the Boston office, comprises
7 offices, located at Boston, Springfield, Worcester and New Bedford,
Massachusetts; Portland and Bangor, Maine; and Manchester, New
Hampshire. There are approximately 97 reporters in the Boston
District, while the reporters on the Boston office pay roll, sought by
the Petitioner, are approximately 62 in number. The main office of
the Boston District is in Boston. Authority to hire reporters for the
district comes from the Boston office; starting salaries, promotions
and all other matters pertaining to working conditions, discipline,
and policies are determined by the manager in the main office in Bos-
ton. All bills for rental, telephone and telegraph services go through
the Boston office for approval; employees are paid by voucher to the
Boston office where the pay roll is made up and forwarded to the
suboffices for distribution. There is from time to time interchange
of reporters among the offices in the district, and new reporters are
trained in the Boston office before being assigned to other offices in
the district. On occasion, conferences are held in the Boston office
attended by reporters from other offices in the district, but, except in
emergency, no conferences solely of the Boston office reporters are
held. The Boston District manager makes periodic visits to all the
offices in the district. Reporters in the suboffices are subject to the
direction and control of the reporting manager who is located in the
district office.
Petitioner urges that the extent of its organization of the employees
must be considered in reaching a determination as to the appropriate
unit in this case. However, we conclude, in the light of the other facts
3 Matter o f Ford Motor Company, 66 N. L R . B. 1317, 1322.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in this record, that the extent of employee organization would actually
be the controlling factor for finding appropriate a unit limited to the
Boston office. In these circumstances we must find such a unit to be
inappropriate because the Act, as amended, provides that "the extent
to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling." 4 On
the other hand, the more extensive unit contended for by the Employer
is appropriate.5 As the Petitioner has indicated its willingness to
accept such a unit as an alternative, and has satisfied us as to its ade-
quate showing of interest in the unit found appropriate herein, we shall
deny the Employer's motion to dismiss and shall direct an election
among the employees comprising that unit.
We find that all credit reporters employed in the Employer's Boston
District, including reporters assigned to offices at Boston, Springfield,
Worcester, and New Bedford, Massachusetts; Portland and Bangor,
Maine; and Manchester, New Hampshire, but excluding executives,
guards, professional employees, and all supervisors, constitute a unit
appropriate for 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 pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, 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, and also excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
American Federation of Labor.
6 Section 9 (c) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act, 1947.
e Matter of Denver Producing t Refining Co., 75 N. L. R B . 873; Matter of Illinois
Power Co., 75 N. L. R. B . 1221 ; Matter of Radiomarine Corporation of America, 75
N. L. R. B. 651.