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 92-110
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. FIC92-17 and FIC 92-56.
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 March 31, 1992, the complainants requested of the respondent copies of
the monthly and annual leave reports for the entire staff of the New London
welfare department from July 1, 1985 to March 31, 1992.
3. By letter
also dated March 31, 1992, the respondent denied the complainants' request as
outlined in paragraph 2, above.
4. It is
found that the parties understand the complainants to be seeking the monthly
and annual report of employee leave balances including records concerning sick,
vacation, holiday, funeral, union leave and compensatory time.
5. It is
found that in addition to the attendance information contained in employees'
personnel files, the records at issue are maintained for auditing purposes in
files separate from employee personnel files.
6. 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
Docket #FIC 92-110 Page
2
by characterizing any
absences as sick leave or sick time, the reason for absences from work is
disclosed.
7. It is
found that the respondent failed to notify any affected employees of the
complainants' March 31, 1992 request pursuant to 1-20a(b), G.S.
8. 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 one for records
concerning any leave pay compensation.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 4 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 92-110 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