Re: Foi Request 6051 - Review

Economy, Communities and Corporate Directorate Geoff Hughes

Your Ref: Mr Paul Cardin Our Ref: SCS/001321/070325 Please ask for: Sam Smith Email: Direct Line / Extension: 01432 26 0257 [email protected] Fax: E-mail: [email protected]

12 February 2014

Dear Sir,

RE: FOI REQUEST 6051 - REVIEW

Further to your e-mail of 12 December 2013 requesting a review of the handling of your request. I have now had an opportunity to review the file and make enquiries and would respond as follows.

Your original request, received on 8 November 2013 (and clarified on 21 November 2013) was for:

Please browse to Wirral Leaks, an increasingly popular Wirral-based blog, and to the post-dated 5th October 2013, entitled:

"Bullying Is An Ugg-ly Business" http://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/bullying-is-an-ugg-ly-business/

This blog has been the source of entirely accurate information in the past and worryingly, this particular thread reports that an unnamed officer of Wirral Council has recently been compensated in the sum of £48,000 (tax free) -following what appears to have been an internal dispute / complaint.

I would like you to provide details of ALL Herefordshire Council officers who have been in receipt of similar payments, whether they be hidden, or declared and scrutinised by members, in these or similar circumstances.

Please provide:

1. Date of payment 2. Amount of payment

Working in partnership for the people of Herefordshire The Shirehall, St Peter’s Square, Hereford, HR1 2HX (DX: 135296 Hereford 3) Herefordshire Council Main Switchboard (01432) 260000, www.herefordshire.gov.uk NHS Herefordshire Main Switchboard (01432) 344344, www.herefordshire.nhs.uk SCS/001321/070325 Page 1 3. Reason for payment 4. Have the payment / circumstances been declared publicly? 5. Subject matter e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying & Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc. 6. Copies of reports; aide memoirs; emails; letters; memoranda; notes; meeting minutes; meeting notes (verbatim or non-verbatim), whether in written or electronic format, and connected to meetings, council scrutiny committees, investigations (internal or external), and / or the processing of any payments. 7. Outcome - e.g. whether employees involved are still employed by the council. 8. Disciplinary Action involved, if any. 9. Number of employees involved in dispute / complaint 10. Number of employees in receipt of payment(s)

I am not asking for names or job positions / sections / departments as I'm aware these details could be used to identify employees and thereby infringe upon their personal privacy. Please redact such identifying information in line with the Data Protection Act.

However, please do not overstep the mark by redacting e.g. the quantities in public money that may have been paid out to officers. Such details are vital to the legitimate and compelling public interest.

Please amend my request to take in the financial year commencing 2010. i.e. April 2010 through to November 8th 2013.

The response provided to you related to payments made to staff in settlement of an incident which comprised an internal grievance made by a number of staff relating to bullying and harassment which occurred during the timeframe set out in your question.

I have found no evidence to support your assertion that records relating to this incident have been altered for any reason, and specifically that no records have been altered with the intention of preventing disclosure.

Question 1:

As you point out the response to question 1 in relation to the above is incorrect. Settlement payments to the relevant members of staff were in fact made in the last quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013. It would appear that the date previously supplied to you was not checked for accuracy against the appropriate records.

Question 2:

The amount paid to members of staff in relation to this incident was withheld following application of the exemption set out in Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have considered the reasons behind the application of this exemption and I agree that to release details of the amount received by each member of staff would involve the disclosure of personal data of which there is a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

Payments of this type are regulated by settlement agreements which contain a clause outlining the confidentially of the details of the agreement and the payment made. I therefore concur with the original response to you which engaged the exemption set out in Section 41 of the Act.

Question 3:

I note the reason for the payments in this instance was given in the original response.

Question 4:

SCS / 001321 / 070325 Page 2 I note response to this question was given in the original response in that details of the payments made / circumstances of the matter have not been declared publically. Following the comments made in your e-mail of 12 December 2013 I can confirm that all settlement payments are made following a procedure which involves consideration of the appropriateness of making such a payment and the amount. All Council finances are subject to audit checks.

Question 5:

I note that the subject matter for this incident was given in the original response.

Question 6:

Documents relating to this incident contain personal data and sensitive personal data relating to members of staff, this information was withheld following application of the exemption set out in Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have considered the reasons behind the application of this exemption and I agree that to release the documents requested would involve the disclosure of personal data of which there is a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

As previously stated payments made in settlement of this grievance were regulated by settlement agreements which contain a clause outlining the confidentially of the details of the agreement and the payment made. I therefore concur with the original response to you which engaged the exemption set out in Section 41 of the Act.

Question 7:

This question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of people who received payments rather than the total number of people involved in the grievance.

I am informed that 55% percentage of employees involved in the grievance are still employed and 45% percent are no longer in the employment of the Council.

Question 8:

Again, this question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of the people who received payments rather the total number of people involved in the grievance. Looking at this question afresh, considering the small number of people involved in the matter, and the relatively small size of Herefordshire Council I consider that details of any disciplinary action that may have been instigated would be likely to identify particular individuals and as such would constitute personal information.

In accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance on disclosure of data about employees, I have considered if it would be fair under the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 to release personal information of the members of staff involved, balanced with the public interest in the disclosure of the spending of public money and conduct of a public authority.

I therefore conclude that disclosure of details of disciplinary action, if any, would contravene the first and second principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. This part of your request is therefore refused under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it relates to third party data, and also under Section 41 as internal disciplinary procedures are by their very nature confidential.

Question 9:

As per questions 7 and 8, this question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of the people who received payments rather the total number of people involved in the

SCS / 001321 / 070325 Page 3 grievance. I am informed that the number of people involved in the grievance was between 10 and 20.

The exact number of those involved has not been given in this instance as considering the small number of people involved in the matter, and the relatively small size of Herefordshire Council I consider that to provide the specific number of people involved could lead to identification of the same.

In accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance on disclosure of data about employees, I have considered if it would be fair under the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 to release personal information of the members of staff involved, balanced with the public interest in the disclosure of the spending of public money and conduct of a public authority.

I therefore conclude that disclosure of the exact figure would contravene the first and second principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. This part of your request is therefore refused under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it relates to third party data, and also under Section 41 as internal grievance procedures are by their very nature confidential.

Question 10:

I note that a response was given stating the number of employees who received a payment in settlement of an internal dispute / complaint.

Conclusion

The information provided in answer to question 1 was incorrect.

I consider that the use of the exemptions set out in Section 40(2) and Section 41 of the Act have been appropriately applied in the Council’s response questions 2 and 6.

Responses to questions 3, 4, 5 and 10 were given in the original response.

Questions 7, 8 and 9 had been answered from a narrow perspective; answers encompassing all those involved have been given above.

If you are still dissatisfied with the handling of your request or you would like to pursue the matter further, you may wish to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Yours faithfully

SAM SMITH LEGAL EXECUTIVE

SCS / 001321 / 070325 Page 4