Michigan State Employees Ass'n v. Department of Management and Budget, Docket Nos. 72112

• Decision Date: 02 August 1984
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 72112,72113 and 72179
• Citation: 353 N.W.2d 496,135 Mich.App. 248
• Parties: MICHIGAN STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Defendant-Appellant. MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Defendant-Appellant. 135 Mich.App. 248, 353 N.W.2d 496
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 496

353 N.W.2d 496

MICHIGAN STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Defendant-Appellant.

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 72112, 72113 and 72179.

135 Mich.App. 248, 353 N.W.2d 496

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 5, 1984.

Decided June 5, 1984.

Released for Publication Aug. 2, 1984.

[135 MICHAPP 249] Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Foster, P.C. by Michael E. Cavanaugh, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee in Nos. 72112 and 72113.

Loomis, Ewert, Ederer, Parsley, Davis & Gotting by Maurice E. Schoenberger and James A. Ault, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 72179.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen. and John Wernet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant.

Before DANHOF, C.J., and R.B. BURNS and GRIBBS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

These cases were consolidated for appeal from final orders entered in Ingham County Circuit Court in separate, but virtually identical, actions brought against the Michigan Department of Management and Budget under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 1976 P.A. 442; M.C.L. Sec. 15.231 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(1) et seq. In Nos. 72112 and 72113, the Michigan State Employees Association (MSEA) sought under the FOIA the names and addresses of all employees in the Institutional and Business and Administrative Bargaining Units of the State Civil Service. In No. 72179, the Michigan Association of Governmental Employees (MAGE) sought under the FOIA the names and addresses of all employees classified as excluded employees under the Civil Service employee-relations policy. In each case, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff and defendant has appealed. We affirm.

In all three cases the defendant had offered to provide a list of the names and work-station addresses[135 MICHAPP 250] for the employees. Plaintiffs rejected this offer and requested the employees' home addresses.

However, on appeal the defendant has stated that the sole issue is whether the privacy exemption of FOIA, Sec. 13(1)(a), permits defendant to exempt a list of employees' names and home addresses from disclosure to a union or employee organization seeking such list to assist it in an organizational drive.

The FOIA applies to all public records and separates them into two classes: (i) those which are exempt from mandatory disclosure under Sec. 13, and (ii) all others which must be disclosed. M.C.L. Sec. 15.232(c); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(2)(c). In the trial court the parties agreed that the requested lists of home addresses are public records, that defendant is a public body and that plaintiffs followed proper procedures in requesting disclosure of such information under the FOIA. The parties also agree that Sec. 13(1)(a) provides that:

"A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this Act:

"(a) Information of a personal nature where the public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy."

The Sec. 13 exemptions are not an absolute bar to disclosure. The first sentence of Sec. 13(1) states that a public body may exempt from disclosure public records falling under one of the listed exemptions. Thus, the public body has discretion to disclose public records exempt under Sec. 13.

The...