FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Town of Colchester,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-302
Board of Mediation and Arbitration, State of Connecticut, Department of Labor,
Respondent June 12, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 3, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are a public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint mailed August 15, 1990 and received August 16, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent denied its July 15, 1990 request for certain employer and union submissions in five cases (Case No. 8889-MBA-68, Case No. 8889-MBA-49, Case No. 8788-MBA-95, Case no 8788-MBA-200, and Cae no. 8889-MBA-93).
3. The respondent did not provide the requested records.
4. It is found that the requested records were received by respondent board in binding interest arbitrations involving several municipalities.
5. The respondent claims that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 31-100, G.S., which provides in relevant part: "The board shall hold confidential all information submitted to it by any party to a labor dispute and shall not reveal such information unless specifically authorized to do so by such party."
6. The complainant argues that 31-100, G.S., does not
Docket #FIC 90-302 Page Two
create an exemption for the requested records of the respondent because it does not apply to binding interest arbitration involving municipalities under Title 7.
7. The complainant further argues that even if 31-100, G.S., is applicable, the records it seeks are not included within the terms of 31-100, G.S., because they were not submitted in connection with a labor dispute.
8. It is found that binding interest arbitrations pursuant to Title 7 are labor disputes within the meaning of 31-100.
9. It is further found that 31-91 to 31-100, Chapter 560 of the Connecticut General Statutes, is the chapter of the statutes which establishes the powers and duties of the respondent.
10. It is concluded, therefore, that 31-100, G.S., applies both to labor disputes involving municipalities under Title 7 and to other types of labor disputes, and that it prohibits disclosure of the requested records.
The following order is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 12, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-302 Page Three
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:
TOWN OF COLCHESTER
C/O A. Michael Weber, Esq.
Stephanie Whitcotton, Esq.
Roberts & Finger
767 Third Avenue - 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017
BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
C/O Robert A. Whitehead, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission