Appeals against dismissal since 2004

Dear University of Cambridge,

For all categories of staff (unestablished, assistant,
academic-related, academic, etc), and since 1 January 2004, please
supply the answers to the following questions:

1. How many appeals against dismissal have been heard by the
University (or by some body on behalf of the University)?

2. How many of these appeals have succeeded?

3. How many post-dismissal compensation settlements have been
reached?

4. How many of these settlements were subject to confidentiality
agreements?

I appreciate it might be the case that the amount of work required
to answer these questions may exceed the appropriate limit
prescribed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If that were
to be the case I would hope that the University would follow the
appropriate guidance ("Using the Fees Regulations") issued by the
Information Commissioner, namely:

"Where an authority refuses a request because the appropriate limit
has been exceeded, it should, bearing in mind the duty under
section 16 of the FOIA to advise and assist an applicant, provide
information on how the estimate has been arrived at and provide
advice to the applicant as to how the request could be refined or
limited to come within the cost limit."

This guidance is available on-line at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your reply. Please provide a breakdown by staff
category of the 4 staff dismissals and the 4 post-dismissal
compensation settlements since December 2008 and the original date
of my request. (I had hoped you would do this as a matter of
course, but accept that my original request may not have been
explicit enough in this regard.) Please also tell me how many of
these 4 appeals against dismissal were heard under the University's
current Statute U.

Also, I am afraid that I am somewhat disappointed by the reasoning
provided in the application of the Fees Regulations. Looking at
Decision Notices from the Information Commissioner, it seems that
public authorities using the Fees Regulations as a reason for not
releasing the information requested will typically provide a more
detailed breakdown of how they calculated how long it would take to
retrieve the requested information (e.g. number of files to be
searched, etc.).

Indeed, according to the guidance issued by the Information
Commissioner ("Using the Fees Regulations") at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

the University should have done this as a matter of course:

"Where an authority refuses a request because the appropriate limit
has been exceeded, it should, bearing in mind the duty under
section 16 of the FOIA to advise and assist an applicant, _provide
information on how the estimate has been arrived at_" (emphasis
mine)

Also of relevance in this regard are the findings of the
Information Tribunal in Gowers v The Information Commissioner
[EA/2007/0114], paragraph 68 of which states:

"...a public authority seeking to rely on section 12 should include
in its refusal notice, its estimate of the cost of compliance and
how that figure has been arrived at"

For a copy of the Tribunal's decision, see:
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Do...

As I am sure you appreciate, providing such information allows the
requester to judge for themselves whether the use of the Fees
Regulations is reasonable or should be appealed. Therefore, please
provide details of the estimate(s) which were used to conclude that
the "location, retrieval and extraction of the requested
information" would take too long.

I further note that the unsystematic way in which the data [which
would allow my request to be fulfilled for the time period prior to
December 2008] is held does not conform to the the Freedom of
Information Act's Section 46 Records Management Code of Practice:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/...

Now that this presumably unintentional instance of poor records
management has been brought to the University's attention I trust
that the University will give serious consideration to
re-organising these records so that they conform to this Code of
Practice.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail of 13 January 2010, although
I must express my dissatisfaction with the length of time it has
taken you to reply. As you know, replies to Freedom of Information
requests must be "prompt". Given that the number of cases I was
asking you about was at most 8, and that the information required
was, you have previously informed me, held in a database, it seems
unreasonable it should have taken you so long to reply.

In addition, the information about the calculation you used to
conclude it would take too long to provide all the information I
requested must have already been in your possession and readily
available to you when you replied to me on 13 January 2010 to say
that it would cost too much. It therefore does not seem reasonable
to characterise the month or so delay in replying to me about this
as "prompt" (particularly since you should have supplied that
information with your response on the 13 January 2010).

Further, you have not provided one of the pieces of information I
sought - or at least not clearly enough for me to be sure of it. I
asked: "Please also tell me how many of these 4 appeals against
dismissal were heard under the University's current Statute U."
Please provide this information as soon as possible, since, as I
have already noted, your reply has not been prompt and due to that
delay you have now exceeded the 20 working days [since 13 January
2010] allowed for responding to that part of my request.

Thank you, however, for finally providing details of the estimate
that led you to conclude that it would cost the University too much
to comply with my original request. (I note, in passing, that, as I
previously stated, you should have provided this with your initial
response.) Regarding this estimate, I have a further question: how
are the files indexed (e.g. are they sorted alphabetically, by date
of leaving, etc.)?

If the files are not sorted by date, I would like to ask whether it
would be possible to sort them by date and then, working backwards
in date order from December 2008, answer my original 4 questions
for as far as back as possible before the time taken exceeds that
specified in the Fees Regulations. If this is possible, please do
so and let me know both the answers to my 4 original questions, and
also the time period for which you were able to provide those
answers.

Finally, I would re-iterate my point about the need for your
response to Freedom of Information requests to be prompt.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your reply confirming that none of the appeals in
question were heard under the University's current Statute U. I
humbly suggest that your responses might be of greater use to
requesters if you answered the question asked in plain language and
did not pre-suppose knowledge of the minutiae of the University's
statutes and ordinances on the part of requesters. (Given that the
Freedom of Information Act is deliberately "applicant blind" it
seems perverse to assume such knowledge on the part of those asking
for information.)

With regard to the rest of your reply, I observe firstly that you
have not explained how the files in question are indexed as I
requested. I hope that, now that I have drawn this presumably
inadvertent oversight to your attention you will now explain to me
how the files are indexed.

Secondly, given that your reply of 10 February 2010 speaks of "at
least 500 files" and your most recent e-mail (of 15 February 2010)
says that it would take of the order of 30 seconds per file to sort
them into date order, I do not see how you arrive at the figure of
"more than 10 working days" to sort the files into date order. I
did not ask that *all* files held by the HR Division be sorted into
date order, but merely the files pertaining to my request, i.e. the
files of individuals dismissed since 1 January 2004 and prior to
December 2008.

Even if one assumes that "at least 500 files" is ~750 files and
that it takes more like 45 seconds per file to sort them into date
order (i.e. assume that both your estimates are out by 50%), this
only gives a figure of ~9.4 hours. This would leave about 8.5 hours
to actually go through the files looking for the information I've
requested before the limit at which the University does not need to
comply with my request for information. If one assumes that this
would still take 2 minutes 45 seconds [as estimated in your reply
of 10 February 2010] to get the information I requested - and given
that the files are now sorted one would expect it to take less time
- one would expect that ~185 files could be searched.

Since in the absence of any reason to suppose otherwise, one might
expect a uniform rate of dismissal from the University, this
suggests about 125 files of dismissed individuals/year (on the
basis of ~750 files of people dismissed since 1 January 2004). Thus
~185 files is a significant number of files in this context and it
would be reasonable to ask that the University answer my questions
in respect of them.

Therefore, given that the above calculations are based on the data
you have supplied, please explain why you cannot do as I have
requested?

With regard to your comment that "there is no requirement for a
public authority to undertake work up to the limit", whilst this is
true, there *is* a requirement for public authorities to provide
advice and assistance to applicants (Section 16 of the Act). In
respect of the Fees Regulations and Section 16 of the Act, the
guidance issued by the Information Commissioner ("Using the Fees
Regulations") at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

says:

"Where an authority refuses a request because the appropriate limit
has been exceeded, it should, bearing in mind the duty under
section 16 of the FOIA to advise and assist an applicant, provide
information on how the estimate has been arrived at and provide
advice to the applicant as to _how the request could be refined or
limited to come within the cost limit_." (emphasis mine)

As should be apparent from my correspondence regarding this
request, I am attempting to refine or limit my request so that it
would come within the cost limit. As I am doing so on the basis of
cost figures you have provided I would appreciate it if the
University were to offer more assistance and fewer attempts to
evade its responsibilities under the Act.

Finally, any disruption that complying with my request would cause
the business of the HR Division is, I am happy to say, utterly
irrelevant as to whether or not the University has a duty to comply
with my request. (If you believe otherwise, please cite the
relevant part of the relevant legislation supporting this belief.)
Indeed, if the HR Division were to store its records in accordance
with Freedom of Information Act's Section 46 Records Management
Code of Practice:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/...

...it would not cause it any disruption to comply with requests
such as this one.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear University of Cambridge,

You will no doubt be aware of the timetable given in the "Joint
Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary,
dismissal, and grievance procedures: Notice and announcement of
ballot" as printed on page 552 of the Reporter, No 6179:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009...

This gives 12 March 2010 as the deadline for the receipt by the
Registrary of fly-sheets to be circulated with the voting papers
for this ballot. As you are probably also aware, one of the issues
in the discussion of the proposed reforms that are the subject of
this ballot is the extent to which the existing appeal procedures
have been used in recent times. Thus the information which I have
asked for in my e-mail of 11 February may well be relevant to any
fly-sheets which members of the Regent House may wish to produce.

Consequently I would strongly encourage you to either provide the
information requested in my e-mail of 11 February 2010, or reasons
why you are unable to do so (taking into account my e-mail of 16
February 2010), sufficiently far in advance of 12 March 2010 that
those contemplating writing fly-sheets have adequate time to
consider any information unearthed by this request.

Finally, I would observe that the Information Commissioner is
likely to view such a delay as grounds for issuing a Decision
Notice against the University ("the effect of delay or other
non-compliance served the purposes of the public authority and
requires censure in an adverse Decision Notice (e.g. avoiding
disclosure at a critical time)"):

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear University of Cambridge,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of University of
Cambridge's handling of my FOI request 'Appeals against dismissal
since 2004'.

I wish to complain that the University has failed to provide
details of how its personnel files of individuals who have left the
University are indexed, despite being asked repeatedly (on 11
February 2010 and 16 February 2010) to do so, and neither has it
provided a refusal notice in respect of this information. If the
files are not indexed in any way, then this would imply that they
are simply piled at random in one or more storage areas in one or
more locations. However, given that the University has said (in its
reply of 10 February 2010) that it would take ~2 minutes 45 seconds
to retrieve a file of someone who was dismissed between the
relevant dates (and extract the data I want), it is difficult to
believe that this is the case, not least because if this were the
case then it would be extremely difficult for the University ever
to retrieve any specific individual's file. It seems more likely
that the files are indexed/ordered in some way (although the
indexes may not be ones which are particularly useful in the
context of this request).

I also wish to complain that the University has at no point in its
handling of this request fulfilled its duty "to provide advice and
assistance" (Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act (2000))
with limiting or refining the request to come within the cost
limit, as it should have done according to the Information
Commissioner's guidance at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

In addition, I wish to complain that the University has failed to
comply with Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000)
as its response has not been "prompt" (as is required by Section
10(1)). The University's response of 16 March 2010 makes clear that
the figure of "ten working days" communicated to me on 15 February
2010 was based on ~7,500 files, and that the files that I am
interested in are stored amongst these ~7,500 files in an
"unsystematic way". This is all the information that is needed to
explain that "[t]he assumptions underlying [my] further enquires
are incorrect". Clearly this information must have been in the
University's possession (and to hand) on 15 February 2010, as
otherwise it would have been unable to provide the figure of "ten
working days" then. Therefore it would have required almost no
additional work on the University's part to communicate this to me
and so I do not see how a delay of a month (until 16 March 2010)
can be characterised as "prompt". Indeed, most of the substantive
responses elicited from the University by this request cannot be
characterised as "prompt", and this is in breach of Section 10(1).

In addition, as was communicated to the University in my e-mail of
22 February 2010, there were particular circumstances which meant
that it was particularly important that the information requested
was received before 1pm on 12 March 2010. (Note that this deadline
was set by the University itself on 17 February 2010, which was
after I had made my original request and after my last attempt to
refine or limit my request so that it fell within the cost limit
for requests.) In light of this, the University's decision to
communicate its refusal to provide the requested information to me
a few days later on 16 March 2010 could be construed as an attempt
to delay providing the requested information (or reasons why that
information could not be provided) that served the purposes of the
University authorities, namely to prevent that information being
used in fly-sheets for the upcoming ballot on the proposed reforms
to the University's Statute U:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009...

Finally, I would remind you that the Information Commissioner's
Office has already had occasion to communicate with the University
regarding its failure to carry out internal reviews of FOI requests
in a reasonable time period (ICO Case Reference Number FS50246295).
I would hope, therefore, that this request for an internal review
would be handled in accordance with the Information Commissioner's
guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal
reviews:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

I would also hope that, taking into account that voting in the
aforementioned ballot is expected to commence around 23 April 2010,
the review will be held (and its results communicated to me)
promptly.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ap...

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

The University's response to a subsequent Freedom of Information
request[1] reveals that, in the period 14 December 2009 to 8 July
2010, an additional post-dismissal compensation settlement has been
reached. It therefore seems reasonable that, since 13 December
2009, there may also have been further appeals against dismissal.

So, for all categories of staff (unestablished, assistant,
academic-related, academic, etc), and since 14 December 2009,
please supply the answers to the following questions, broken down
by calendar year and staff category:

1. How many appeals against dismissal have been heard by the
University (or by some body on behalf of the University)? How many
appeals against dismissal have been heard under the University's
current Statute U?

2. How many of these appeals have succeeded?

3. How many post-dismissal compensation settlements have been
reached?

4. How many of these settlements were subject to confidentiality
agreements?

Please provide all information in electronic form.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

[1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fi...

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your response to my request. Please confirm that
there have been no post-dismissal compensation settlements between
8 July 2010 and 6 September 2010. If there have been any such
settlements, please state whether any of them were agreed between 8
July 2010 and 6 August 2010. Please provide your response in
electronic form.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear University of Cambridge,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of University of
Cambridge's handling of my FOI request of 6 September 2010 (your
reference number FOI-2010-173).

In the University's response of 16 September 2010, it cited Section
14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as grounds for not
processing my request further, making reference to some of my
previous requests of the University (your references FOI-2009-148,
FOI-2010-133, and FOI-2010-153). However, none of these previous
requests asked whether or not there had been any post-dismissal
compensation settlements between the specific dates of 8 July 2010
and 6 September 2010, nor for any equivalent information.
Therefore, I do not believe my request of 6 September 2010 (your
reference FOI-2010-173) is a repeated requested in the sense of the
Act, and so I do not believe Section 14(2) applies. Therefore I
believe the University should supply the requested information.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ap...

(Note that the correspondence at this address also includes
correspondence in relation to a previous FOI request.)

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

On 13 October 2010 I received a response from the Administrative
Secretary (dated 12 October 2010) regarding my request for an
internal review, the relevant portions of which I reproduce below.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

** Response from Administrative Secretary to my request for an
internal review **

Dear Mr Beckles,

Internal review of your requests FOI-2010-173and FOI-2010-175

I am responsible for reviewing the University's response to your
requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
("the Act"), which have been allocated the references FOI-2010-173
and FOI-2010-175. I have carried out an independent review as to
whether the University's existing responses comply with its
obligations under the Act.

Turning to each of the requests under review in turn:

FOI-2010-173

I am familiar with the Information Commissioner's Guidance Note on
the exemption relating to repeated requests under s 14 (2) of the
Act and I have considered the explanation provided in the letter
from the University's Freedom of Information Officer to you of 16th
September 2010 in relation to the application of s 14 (2) of the
Act. The Guidance Note states that a request cannot be refused as a
"repeated request" if the request is asking for different
information. While I can see that there is an argument that your
request comprised a request for the same or substantially similar
information (being effectively a request for an update as to the
number of post-compromise settlements which had been reached), I
have concluded after careful consideration, and in particular
having regard to the precise terms of the Guidance Note, that it
was not appropriate for the University's Freedom of Information
Officer to have relied on this exemption in connection with your
request.

However, you are aware that the University must also take into
account its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 and
consider whether the information concerned would be exempt from
disclosure pursuant to s 40 (2) of the Act. This point did not fall
to be considered by the University's Freedom of Information Officer
as she had already determined that s 14(2) applied. In
consideration of the University's obligation to comply with the
data protection principles it is necessary to consider whether this
is personal data.

"personal data" means data which relates to a living individual who
can be identified

(a) from those data, and

(b) other information which is the possession of, or is likely to
come into the possession of, the data controller.

In responses to previous information requests, information has been
given in relation to post-dismissal compensation settlements which
cover substantial periods of time. Those periods of time have been
sufficiently large that it has not been possible to determine which
employees might have had entered into a post-termination
settlement. The shortest period considered has been the period
between 14 December 2009 and 8 July 2010 and it must be noted that
even for that period only one agreement was entered into. It is
clear therefore that if information were made available in relation
to shorter periods, there would be more clarity as to when an
agreement had been entered into and ultimately less difficulty in
surmising the individual to whom it related.

The House of Lords considered this issue in Common Services Agency
v Scottish Information Commissioner where information was sought as
regards childhood leukaemia by sex, year and census ward. It was
recognised there that "the risk [that individuals can be
indentified] is greatest where data are broken down by reference to
small units". It was considered that census wards were too small,
and indeed ultimately it was ruled that there was no disclosure
which could lawfully be made in response to the request.

The University's Freedom of Information Officer suggested that
requests for this information could reasonably be made at six
monthly intervals. Although in this case I have not agreed with her
reasoning, my view is that six months represents the minimum length
of time in respect of which this information could properly be
disclosed for the University to comply with its obligations
pursuant to the Data Protection Act. I find that the information
you have requested is exempt from disclosure pursuant to s 40 (2)
of the Act and should not be disclosed. This exemption is not
subject to the public interest test. Accordingly, I uphold the
decision of the University's Freedom of Information Officer but on
different grounds.

Conclusion

Having completed my review across both these requests, I have
concluded that there is no further action to be taken. I hope this
further explanation will assist your understanding of the
University's position.

The Information Commissioner

If you remain dissatisfied with the University's handling of these
requests or with the outcome of this Review, you may raise the
matter by way of appeal with the Information Commissioner:

The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Administrative Secretary