Court Opinion

ID: 9891361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 14:09:54.944351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:03.813216
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joe Mandrusiak and The Freedom                 :
Foundation,                                    :
                       Appellants              :
                                               :
                  v.                           :    No. 735 C.D. 2022
                                               :    ARGUED: September 11, 2023
York County (The Office of Open                :
Records)                                       :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
               HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER                                        FILED: October 18, 2023

               Joe Mandrusiak and The Freedom Foundation (Requesters)1 appeal
from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County affirming the final
determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR), which held that
the name of the labor union that represents a public employee bargaining unit is not
subject to disclosure because the request implicates rights that are protected by the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution2 and Requesters failed to

   1
       In November 2022, Requesters filed a notice of death for Joe Mandrusiak.
   2
       U.S. Const. amend. I.
articulate a clear public interest that would outweigh the privacy and constitutional
rights implicated by such disclosure. We affirm, albeit on other grounds.3
               Requesters sought the following for each employee employed in a
union-represented bargaining unit: 1) first, middle, and last name; 2) birth year; 3)
job title/position; 4) hire date; 5) work email address; 6) employer (department,
board, commission, etc.); 7) worksite address/location; 8) name of labor union
representing his/her bargaining unit; 9) employer status (permanent or temporary);
10) salary; and 11) level of hire (full or part time).
               In response, the County provided numbers 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11. It
redacted personal identification information, denied providing the first and middle
names of employees, denied providing the full names of certain employees due to
concerns of public safety, and noted that the union affiliation of specific employees
would not be provided as it was protected by the constitutional right to freedom of
association. As for email addresses, it responded that it does not maintain a separate
list and directed Requesters to the website for the office address, main telephone
number, and any public contact information available there.
               Requesters appealed to OOR, arguing that the County erred in denying
the release of the names of the labor unions representing the bargaining units;
redacting the first, middle, and last names of all public employees; and not providing
work email addresses. OOR determined that the County was required to provide the
full names of the employees but not required to take any additional steps regarding
either the request to release the name of the labor union representing the bargaining
units or work email addresses. Pertinent here, OOR concluded that labor union

    3
       Where the result is correct and the basis for affirming is clear from the record, we may affirm
a trial court determination under a different rationale. Rabenold v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the
Borough of Palmerton, 777 A.2d 1257, 1263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

                                                  2
affiliation was protected by the constitutional right to freedom of association and
that the County could withhold that information. In support, OOR observed that the
United States Supreme Court has consistently held that it is a violation of an
individual’s right of freedom of association under the First Amendment for states to
mandate the disclosure of an individual’s association with any group.             See
McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (2014); Shelton v. Tucker, 364
U.S. 479 (1960); Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960); NAACP v. Ala.,
357 U.S. 449 (1958). OOR reasoned that Requesters were “clearly seek[ing] the
labor union to which each employee in a bargaining unit [was] affiliated; thus,
essentially asking for the disclosure of the labor union to which the employee [was]
a member.” October 18, 2021 OOR Determination at 14; Reproduced Record (R.R.)
at 27a.
             Requesters appealed to the trial court, which attempted to streamline
the appeal by ordering the County to “supplement the record by filing the implicated
collective bargaining agreements [(CBAs)].” March 3, 2022 Tr. of Proceedings at
10; R.R. at 114a. As the County asserted, the CBAs and their recognition sections
should provide the requisite information for Requesters “to determine which
positions are exclusive to the named bargaining units along with the supplement to
the record regarding the bargaining units and the unions to which they are
associated[.]”4 March 17, 2022 County’s Br. in Response to Pet. for Review of the
Final Determination of OOR at 17-18. In so doing, the County provided Requesters
with both the names of the respective unions that represent the particular bargaining
units and the positions by bargaining unit. Suppl. R.R. (S.R.R.) at 2b-283b (CBAs)
and S.R.R. at 284b-324b (Positions by Bargaining Unit).

    4
      See Suppl. R.R. (S.R.R.) at 2b-283b (CBAs) and S.R.R. at 284b-324b (Positions by
Bargaining Unit).

                                          3
             In rendering a decision in the County’s favor, the trial court stated:
“The sole question raised . . . is whether [] OOR erred when it determined the name
of the labor union that represents a public employee bargaining unit is not subject to
disclosure under the [Right-to-Know Law, Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S.
§§ 67.101 - 67.3104 (RTKL).]” June 13, 2020 Trial Ct. Op. at 7. To that end, the
trial court determined: “To disclose the name of the union that represents a particular
bargaining unit would disclose, or could easily lead to disclosure of, membership
information that is protected thereby infringing upon the freedom to associate.” Id.
at 10-11.
             On appeal, Requesters do not disagree with the trial court’s basic
premise that an employee’s membership in a union is protected from disclosure by
the First Amendment’s right to freedom of association. However, they ask us to
determine that OOR erred in determining that the name of the labor union
representing a public employee bargaining unit was the equivalent of asking for the
disclosure of the labor union to which the employee is a member and that OOR
misunderstood the difference between a bargaining unit and a union membership
list.
             We find it inappropriate to reach the issue posited above. At oral
argument before this Court, counsel did not dispute that the County had provided
Requesters with documents from which they could glean the information they had
requested. What became evident was Requesters’ issue with the format of the
responsive records, which would apparently require significant labor to match up the
data and organize it into the desired lists. It is well established that agencies in
responding to requests are “not . . . required to create a record which does not
currently exist or to compile, maintain, format or organize a record in a manner in

                                          4
which the agency does not currently compile, maintain, format or organize the
record.” Section 705 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.705.5
              Accordingly, we affirm.

                                            _____________________________________
                                            BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                            President Judge Emerita

    5
      While it would appear that both sides wish us to opine on the First Amendment issue decided
by the trial court, we decline to do so because engaging in such an analysis would be to issue an
advisory opinion. Moreover, where cases can properly be decided on non-constitutional grounds,
courts should not reach constitutional issues. Ballou v. State Ethics Comm’n, 436 A.2d 186 (Pa.
1981).

                                               5
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joe Mandrusiak and The Freedom        :
Foundation,                           :
                       Appellants     :
                                      :
              v.                      :   No. 735 C.D. 2022
                                      :
York County (The Office of Open       :
Records)                              :

                                  ORDER

           AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2023, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of York County is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                    _____________________________________
                                    BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                    President Judge Emerita