Opinion ID: 433054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Right to Information

Text: 32 The Board has also alleged that Bell violated the Information Judgment in connection with a grievance in April 1981. 8 Consumer Service Representative Christine Simmons had received a one-day suspension for absenteeism. She grieved the suspension at a meeting on April 28, 1981. Arline Jensen, the union steward representing Simmons, argued that the employee had been ill and that she had been treated more harshly than others in her work unit who had attendance problems. After district manager Walter Lackey announced that he would not overturn the suspension, Jensen asked to look at the attendance records of other employees in Simmons' unit to help substantiate the claim that Simmons was treated unfairly. Lackey denied the request, and Jensen replied that she would repeat it in writing after the meeting. 33 Shortly after the meeting, Jensen handed Lackey a written request to review the attendance records of other employees in Simmons' unit. The request was on a union form, reciting as boilerplate in its first paragraph that the information was requested in connection with a grievance and was absolutely essential to the intelligent handling of the case by the Union. The second paragraph of the form was comprised largely of a space several lines long in which Jensen had written her request: To review the attendance records of those service representatives in Unit 5-4 .... The request was denied. 34 Bell argues that Lackey understood the request to be for copies of the records, not merely to review them, and that the request was denied on that understanding. The Information Judgment extends to the union the right to review the records--copies are available only on request of the employee involved, and Bell insists that Jensen's request was eventually granted when the Company learned from the Board's August 1981 complaint that she had asked only to review the records. The Board does not seek in this case to pursue an obligation to provide information not embodied in the consent judgment. Cf. Southwestern Bell, 667 F.2d at 474-76. Instead, it asks only that we enforce that judgment's limited requirement that Bell allow the union to review certain records upon request. The special master found that the Company denied a request that could hardly have been more clear in seeking only a review of the records. We agree.