345 N.E.2d 438 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1975
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County and raises three assignments of error, as follows:
"1. The Court below erroneously interpreted the privilege contained in Revised Code §
"2. The Court below erroneously balanced the general statutory privilege of the Board of Review of confidentiality at its proceedings to overcome the specific needs, as reflected in the evidentiary record, of the Commission for obtaining information during its lawful investigation.
"3. The Court below erroneously extended to the Chairman, Board of Review, the privilege granted by Revised Code §
Plaintiff issued a subpoena duces tecum to compel defendant, as chairman of the board of review, Ohio bureau of employment services, to produce the "transcript of the hearing before the board of review conducted on May 24, 1973, regarding the claim of Molly A. Easley." Upon advice of counsel, and pursuant to R. C.
Plaintiff, the Ohio civil rights commission, is granted by R. C.
"Hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, administer oaths, take the testimony of any person under oath, and require the production for examination of any books and papers relating to any matter under investigation or in question before the commission, and may make rules as to the issuance of subpoenas by individual commissioners."
In addition, R. C.
"* * * The commission or a commissioner may issue subpoenas to compel access to or the production of such materials, or the appearance of such persons, and may issue interrogatories to a respondent, to the same extent and subject to the same limitations as would apply if the subpoenas or interrogatories were issued or served in aid of a civil action in a common pleas court. * * *"
On the other hand, the bureau of employment services is precluded from releasing information furnished to it, except under special circumstances, by R. C.
"Subject to section
R. C.
From the foregoing statutes, it becomes quite clear that the information furnished to the bureau of employment services by employers or employees is not subject to subpoena by the Ohio civil rights commission. These specific prohibitions of R. C.
With respect to the second assignment of error, plaintiff may well be correct that the trial court erred in balancing the general statutory privilege of the bureau of employment services against the needs of the plaintiff for the information. Plaintiff, being an agency created by statute, has only such powers and duties as are conferred upon it *113
by statute. The relationship of one public administrative agency with another public administrative agency, including the balancing of the information needs of one such agency against the privacy requirements of another, is primarily a matter of legislative rather than judicial concern. Since the General Assembly has clearly provided by R. C.
Thus, there was no occasion for the trial court to independently balance the needs of the two agencies with respect to the information involved. However, there was no prejudicial error, since the legislature has determined and provided by statute that the information of the bureau of employment services is not available to plaintiff. Fundamentally, statutes like R. C.
The third assignment of error raises a very vexing issue. The prohibition from disclosure of information set forth by R. C.
However, there is a second portion of the record in an appeal to the board of review. This consists of the testimony and evidence received directly by the board of review or a referee to whom the case has been referred in a hearing upon the appeal. The provisions of R. C.
However, the subpoena herein is not limited to any existing transcript received by the board of review upon appeal, but is a very broad subpoena duces tecum, attempting to obtain the complete transcript of the hearing before the board of review, including information which may not be divulged pursuant to R. C.
Judgment affirmed.
STRAUSBAUGH, P. J., and REILLY, J., concur. *115