U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

47:0410(32)CA - - SSA and AFGE, Local 1923 - - 1993 FLRAdec CA - - v47 p410

Other Files: 

[ v47 p410 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

47 FLRA No. 32









(Charging Party/Union)




April 16, 1993


Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by changing the method of building access provided to the Union's Benefits Coordinator, without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to negotiate over the impact and implementation of the change. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The Respondent filed an opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings made at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the rulings. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision, the exceptions, and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order.

We note the General Counsel's request that the Authority take judicial notice of the Judge's decision and the record in Social Security Administration, Case No. 3-CA-20355 (1992), ALJ Decision Reports, No. 106 (Dec. 11, 1992) (SSA), which the Judge heard on the same day as the instant case. In SSA, the Judge found that the change in the manner of building entry in dispute in that case resulted in at most a 15-minute delay for the affected individual, a finding the Judge made also in the instant case with respect to the Benefits Coordinator. The General Counsel contests the Judge's finding in this case because according to the General Counsel, the record in this case contains no evidence regarding the length of time required for the Benefits Coordinator to enter the building. The General Counsel requests the Authority to take judicial notice of the SSA decision and record and, based on that notice, assign error to the Judge's finding and find that the Benefits Coordinator would be subject to a 15-minute entry procedure up to eight times daily.

Section 2429.5 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits us to take official notice of the decisions of our Administrative Law Judges.(*) Moreover, noting that the Respondent has not opposed the General Counsel's motion, we conclude that official notice could include the record and transcript in SSA. See Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Board of Education, 649 F.2d 434, 441 (6th Cir. 1981); Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. J.C. Farrow, 580 F.2d 1260, 1277-78 n.33 (5th Cir. 1978). However, even if we took judicial notice of SSA, the decision and record in that case would not assist the General Counsel here. In this regard, the General Counsel has not identified the portions of the record or transcript in SSA on which it relies. Moreover, there is no evidence in this case to support, and no assertion that the record in SSA supports, the General Counsel's assertion that the Benefits Coordinator would be subject to the changed entry procedure up to eight times per day. Accordingly, even if we were to conclude that the Judge's finding regarding a 15-minute delay should have been confined to his decision in SSA, there is, as the General Counsel concedes, no evidence regarding the claimed delay in this case. In these circumstances, we deny the General Counsel's request that we take judicial notice of SSA.

II. Order

The complaint is dismissed.

(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)

*/ See United States Customs Service, 18 FLRA 195 n.1 (1985); see also Department of the Treasury, 38 FLRA 875, 877-78 (1990) ("official notice" is a broader concept than "judicial notice" encompassing, for example, commonly known facts as well as matters within the specialized knowledge or expertise of the agency).