FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Patricia Serluca and AFSCME,
Local 1303-125,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 92-17
Risk Manager/ Labor Relations
Specialist, New London Personnel Department,
Respondent September 9, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on July 30, 1992, at which time the complainants and the respondent
appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated for hearing
with contested case docket nos. FIC92-56 and FIC92-110.
After consideration of the entire record, the
following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated November 26, 1991, the complainants requested of the respondent copies of
the annual report of leave balances for the entire staff of the New London city
welfare department for July 1, 1985, July 1, 1986, July 1, 1987, July 1, 1988,
July 1, 1989, July 1, 1990 and July 1, 1991.
The complainants also requested records/documentation of all
compensatory time earned for all employees of the welfare department since July
1, 1985.
3. By
memorandum dated January 10, 1992, the respondent denied the complainants'
request for data concerning all but one employee and claimed that two of the
three individuals notified pursuant to 1-20a(b), G.S., objected to such
disclosure. The Commission notes that
the respondent failed to produce evidence indicating whether such objections
were presented to the respondent in writing in accordance with the provisions
of 1-20a(c), G.S.
4. It is
found that in addition to the attendance information contained in employees'
personnel files, the records at issue are maintained separately for auditing
purposes.
Docket #FIC 92-17 Page
2
5. The
respondent claims that the requested records are exempt pursuant to
1-19(b)(2), G.S., because their disclosure would constitute an invasion of
the employees' privacy in that by characterizing any absences as sick leave or
sick time, the reason for absences from work is disclosed.
6. It is also
found that the complainants are not seeking information about the nature of any
employee's illness or health: the
request is limited to a request for records concerning any sick or other leave
pay compensation including vacation time, paid holidays, funeral time, union
leave and compensatory time.
7. It is
concluded that the employees whose records are at issue have no reasonable
expectation of confidentiality regarding the characterization of their
compensation or absences from work as that information is restricted to
information supplied for payroll or auditing purposes.
8. It is
further found that a reasonable person would not suffer embarrassment as a
result of the disclosure of information concerning sick time and compensation,
because sick time is an ordinary benefit of employment generally used by
employees in accordance with the terms of their employment.
9. It is also
found that public employees are not protected under 1-19(b)(2), G.S., from
any embarrassment that might result from disclosure of records showing an abuse
of sick time, because such disclosure would not be an invasion of personal
privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.; the exemption was not intended to shield the attendance records
of public officials from public knowledge.
10. It is
concluded that the respondent has not met his burden of proof with respect to
his claim that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under
1-19(b)(2), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with copies of the
requested records identified in paragraphs 2 and 7 of the findings, above, for
the period from July 1, 1985 to the present time.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 9, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 92-17 Page
3
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c),
G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED
CASE ARE:
Patricia Serluca
AFSCME, Local 1303-125
16 Maple Street
Waterford, CT 06385
Risk Manager/Labor Relations
Specialist
New London Personnel
Department
c/o Attorney Leo J, McNamara
Conway, Londregan &
McNamara
38 Huntington
P.O. Box 1351
New London, CT 06320
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission