FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Bill Leahy,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-136
State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services, Office of Labor Relations, Personnel Division,
Respondent November 13, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 12, 1991, 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letters of complaint filed March 20, April 11, May 7, and June 21, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to provide him with a copy of a certain document.
3. It is found that the complainant questioned the policy of permitting a union service representative, on a leave of absence from state employment for union business, to work overtime on weekends.
4. It is found that the service representative in question worked full time for the Corrections (NP-4) Bargaining Unit of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (the "Union").
5. It is also found that the service representative continued to be paid in full by the State of Connecticut Department of Corrections, including the continuation of his health and life insurance and pension benefits.
6. It is also found that the Union reimbursed the state for one-half of the cost of continuing the salary and benefits of the service representative.
7. It is found that the service representative also worked overtime on weekends for the Corrections Department.
Docket #FIC 91-136 Page 2
8. It is found that when the complainant learned of the overtime practice described above, he sought an explanation from the Union and various governmental offices, and requested an investigation by the Commissioner of Administrative Services in January 1991.
9. It is found that the respondent, by letter dated March 4, 1991, replied that the practice was governed by the provisions of a side letter agreement between the Union and the State of Connecticut.
10. It is found that the complainant requested from the respondent, by letter dated March 7, 1991, a copy of any document authorizing such practice, including the side letter agreement cited by the respondent in its March 4 letter.
11. It is found that the respondent, by letter dated March 13, 1991, replied that all of the complainant's questions could be answered by a careful reading of the collective bargaining agreement, and that all other available information had been provided to him.
12. It is found that the side letter agreement referenced by the respondent in its March 4 letter concerns the issue of the continuation of salary and benefits to service representatives on a leave of absence for Union business, but does not treat the issue of overtime pay.
13. It is found that no document exists that authorizes the overtime practice questioned by the complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 13, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-136 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:
Bill Leahy
50 Carlton Avenue
Chicopee, MA 01020
State of Connecticut Department of Administrative Services Office of labor Relations Personnel Division
c/o Maria C. Rodriquez
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06101
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission