FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

           

Prior to the scheduling of a hearing in the above-captioned matter, the respondent moved on March 1, 2006 to dismiss this matter without a hearing, pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S. On March 7, 2006, the complainants objected to the respondent’s motion. 

           

1.  Section 1-206(b)(4), G.S., provides that:

 

[n]otwithstanding any provision of this subsection to the contrary, in the case of an appeal to the commission of a denial by a public agency, the commission may, upon motion of such agency, confirm the action of the agency and dismiss the appeal without a hearing if it finds, after examining the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the appellant, that the agency has not violated the Freedom of Information Act.

 

2.  The notice of appeal dated and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“Commission”) on January 25, 2006 alleges that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying the complainants’ January 13, 2006 request to inspect and receive copies of “employment records for a major regional employer”. The request letter attached to the appeal requested “access to and copies of all quarterly UC-5A and/or UC-5B forms filed with the department by Pfizer Inc., from October 1, 1997 through January 1, 2006” (the “requested records”).

 

             3.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. (emphasis added).

 

            4.  Section 31-254, G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

(a) Each employer, whether or not otherwise subject to this chapter, shall keep accurate records of employment as defined in subsection (a) of section 31-222, containing such information as the administrator may by regulation prescribe in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. …. The administrator may require from any employer, whether or not otherwise subject to this chapter, any sworn or unsworn reports with respect to persons employed by him which are necessary for the effective administration of this chapter. Information thus obtained shall not be published or be open to public inspection, other than to public employees in the performance of their public duties, in any manner revealing the employee's or the employer's identity, but any claimant at a hearing before a commissioner shall be supplied with information from such records to the extent necessary for the proper presentation of his claim. Any employee of the administrator, or any other public employee, who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both and shall be dismissed from the service. (emphasis added).

 

5.  Neither party contests the fact that the requested records disclose information obtained from an employer, as required by the respondent, in the course of its administration of the Unemployment Compensation Act. The requested records were filed with the respondent pursuant to §31-254, G.S. Even the names of the forms themselves, as stated in the complainants’ request and on the samples attached to the respondent’s motion, support this fact.

 

6.  Moreover, the scope of the request, as set forth at paragraph 2, above, by its express terms requests records pertaining to a specific employer. Section 31-254, G.S., as set forth at paragraph 4, above, expressly prohibits disclosure of information obtained pursuant to the statute that “in any manner reveal[s] … the employer's identity” (emphasis added). Therefore, contrary to the suggestion in the complainants’ objection referenced above, redaction would not, in this case, serve the purpose of protecting the employer's identity. All the requested records, by the very terms of the request, pertain to a single identifiable employer.         

 

            7.  The Commission has held, on the same grounds, that a request for a slightly different form (UC-1NP), filed by a non-profit organization pursuant to §31-254, G.S., was not subject to mandatory disclosure. Docket #FIC 2000-026, Jerome P. Brown and New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL-CIO v. Director of Program Policy, State of Connecticut, Department of Labor.

 

             After consideration of the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the complainants, it is concluded that, by operation of §1-210(a), G.S., §31-254, G.S., exempts the requested records from disclosure. Consequently, pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S., the following order by the Commission is hereby recommended:

 

1.  The action of the respondent is hereby confirmed and the complaint is dismissed without a hearing.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 10, 2006.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

 

Ted Mann and the New London Day

47 Eugene O’Neill Drive

New London, CT 06320

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Labor 

c/o Thadd A. Gnocchi, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-034FD/paj/5/15/2006