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