Extract
New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 42 (1990)
New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. and Local 1022,
Communications Workers of America, AFL- CIO. Cases 22-CA-15406 and 22-CA-15438September 28, 1990DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERSCRACRAFT AND DEVANEYOn May 16, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Steven B. Fish issued the attached decision. The Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The Charging Party filed a brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.In October 1987,2 the Respondent's security department was contacted by a customer complaining of annoying phone calls received on her nonpublished number. The customer indicated that she felt that her non-published number had been disclosed by an employee of the Respondent. The Respondent's security representative, Lorraine Vasilik, commenced an investigation into the matter.In accessing the Respondent's computer network, Vasilik discovered several entries on the complaining customer's account that did not appear to be legitimate. Further inquiry revealed that the computer entries were made by Elizabeth Lynch, a customer service representative employed by the Respondent.Lynch was subsequently interviewed by Vasilik and another security representative.3 At the interview, Lynch signed a statement admitting that she had accessed the complaining customer's account and that she disclosed the nonpublished number to her niece. Thereafter, the Respondent suspended Lynch for 5 days based on her misconduct.On November 9, the same customer again called the Respondent's security department complaining of an upsetting phone call. The customer stated that she had been called by Lynch and was told that Lynch had been interviewed at home, that she was going to lose her job and be criminally prosecuted, and that the customer could be sued for defamation of character.In late November, the Union filed a grievance regarding Lynch's suspension. In order to process the grievance, Union President Lynn Buckley requested from the Respondent the security department's investigative report into the matter, including a copy of the computer note screen of the account that Lynch allegedly accessed.4The Respondent furnished page two of the note screen to the Union. The Respondent declined to furnish the Union page one of the note screen, however. According to the testimony at the hearing of security representative Vasilik, the Respondent believed that the billing information and nonpublished phone numbers contained on page one were proprietary information, and that the information on page one with respect to conversations between the complaining customer and the Respondent's officials was confidential. The Respondent declined to furnish the Union any portion of the security report in part because the report also reflected conversations between Respondent's officials and the customer.5On February 5, 1988, a complaint issued alleging, inter alia, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union with the security investigative report and computer note screen.The judge found that page one of the note screen, as well as the security investigative report, to the extent they reflected conversations and contacts between the customer and the Respondent's officials concerning the complaint and its initiation, constituted information relevant to the Union's processing of the Lynch grievance.6 The judge further found, however, that this in-1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.2 All dates refer to 1987 unless otherwise specified.3 The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent unlawfully ignored Lynch's request to have a union representative present at the investigatory interview. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975).4 The security report comprised the following: (1) a document entitled request for security assistance; (2) notes taken by a security representative; (3) a nonpublished phone number; (4) a note screen; (5) request for ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
