Employment Tribunal Judgement

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Cleveland Fire Brigade.

Thomas Waterworth

Dear Cleveland Fire Brigade,
Employment Tribunal Judgement

The attached link below relating to the decision of an Employment Tribunal (ET), makes reference at paragraph 65 to Cleveland Fire Service (sic):
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-d...

Arising from the publication of ET judgement, information on the following is requested:

- was the senior manger referred to in the published ET judgment seconded from Cleveland Fire Brigade to Cleveland Fire Brigade Fire Risk Management Solutions CIC? If not, which CIC was he seconded to?

- what were the dates of the secondment of the senior manger referred to above?

- paragraph 65 of the ET Judgement suggests that the senior officer believed he was employed by Cleveland Fire Brigade from 2008 to April 2018. Is this correct? If not who was he employed by during this period?

- during the period of secondment referred to in the ET judgement, was the senior officer employed by the CIC or Cleveland Fire Authority?

- during the period of secondment referred to in the ET judgement was the senior officer a Director of the Community Interest Company as indicated in the ET judgement?

- what were the total employment costs of the senior officer for the period of secondment?

- what was the total cost of the above senior officer for the secondment period paid by the Community Interest Company to reimburse Cleveland Fire Authority?

Yours faithfully,

Thomas Waterworth

Info, Cleveland Fire Brigade

OFFICIAL:

Dear Thomas Waterworth,
 
Your request for information has been received and will be dealt with,
within the statutory timescales.
 
Kind Regards
Freedom of Information Officer
Cleveland Fire Brigade
Training & Administration Hub
Endeavour House
Queens Meadow Business Park
Hartlepool
TS25 5TH
01429 872311
 
 
 
NB.  PLEASE NOTE THAT INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN RESPONSE TO THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS PROVIDE DATA FOR INSPECTION BY THE ENQUIRER, BUT
DOES NOT GIVE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO REUSE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
RESPONSE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT AND IS NOT LICENSED FOR REUSE
INCLUDING MARKETING.
 
IN PROVIDING YOU WITH THIS INFORMATION I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION
TO THE RE-USE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2005, WHICH CAME
INTO FORCE ON THE 1 JULY 2005. IF YOU INTEND TO RE-USE THE INFORMATION
PROVIDED, YOU MUST CONTACT THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, AS THEY MAY WISH
TO PLACE CONDITIONS ON HOW THIS INFORMATION IS USED.”
 
 
 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Info, Cleveland Fire Brigade

Dear Thomas Waterworth
 
Freedom of Information Request
 
I am writing further to your email of 13 August 2019 where you requested
the following information:
 
 Arising from the publication of ET judgement, information on the
following is requested:
 
- was the senior manger referred to in the published ET judgment seconded
from Cleveland Fire Brigade to Cleveland Fire Brigade Fire Risk Management
Solutions CIC? If not, which CIC was he seconded to?
 
- what were the dates of the secondment of the senior manger referred to
above?
 
- paragraph 65 of the ET Judgement suggests that the senior officer
believed he was employed by Cleveland Fire Brigade from 2008 to April
2018. Is this correct? If not who was he employed by during this period?
 
- during the period of secondment referred to in the ET judgement, was the
senior officer employed by the CIC or Cleveland Fire Authority?
 
- during the period of secondment referred to in the ET judgement was the
senior officer a Director of the Community Interest Company as indicated
in the ET judgement?
 
- what were the total employment costs of the senior officer for the
period of secondment?
 
- what was the total cost of the above senior officer for the secondment
period paid by the Community Interest Company to reimburse Cleveland Fire
Authority?
 
We regret that we are unable to provide this information.
 
Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides an exemption
from the obligation to release personal data if disclosure would breach
any of the data protection principles enshrined in the Data Protection Act
2018.  We believe that releasing this information would breach the first
principle of the 2018 Act, that personal data "should be processed fairly
and lawfully".
 
Accordingly, we regret that your request is refused under Section 40(2) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
 
You have the right to seek a review of this decision and a request should
be made to the Head of ICT for this purpose. The request should be in
writing with the grounds for a review and sent to the Head of ICT, at the
address below or email [1][Cleveland Fire Brigade request email]
 
Reviews should be made within 40 working days of our response to your
request being issued.  Any requests for review received outside of the 40
working days will be refused.  Please note this is in line with the
Information Commissioner’s own working practices.
 
If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may appeal
directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for a decision. 
Generally, The ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the
complaints procedure provided by Cleveland Fire Authority.  The ICO can be
contacted at:
 
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire,
SK9 5AF.
 
Should you have any queries or require any additional information, please
contact me on the details listed 
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Freedom of Information Officer
Cleveland Fire Brigade
Training & Administration Hub
Endeavour House
Queens Meadow Business Park
Hartlepool
TS25 5TH
01429 872311
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Thomas Waterworth

Dear Info,
Freedom of Information Request

I was disappointed with your refusal to reply as the the name of the senior manager and information of his secondment to the Fire Trading Company was included in the publicly available judgment of the Employment Tribunal previous sent to you. It is therefore already in the public domain. I would therefore be grateful if you would refer my original request for information to the Head of ICT to review the decision not to provide the information I requested.

However, whilst the Head of ICT considers the review relating to the previous request, I would be grateful for information under the Freedom of Information Act which does not relate to a specific individual on the following:

- how many Cleveland Fire Brigade mangers were seconded from Cleveland Fire Brigade to Cleveland Fire Risk Management Services (CIC ) during the financial year 2017/18?

- what were the dates of the secondment of the mangers referred to
above?

- during the periods of secondment referred to above, were any of the managers
employed by Cleveland Fire Authority during the secondment?

- what were the total employment costs of the managers seconded to the CIC during the financial year 2017/18?

- what was the total cost of the secondments paid by the Community Interest Company for the financial year 2027/18 to reimburse Cleveland Fire Authority?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Waterworth

Info, Cleveland Fire Brigade

OFFICIAL:

Dear Thomas Waterworth,
 
I refer to your request for a review of the decision 'not to reply as the
name of the senior manager and information of his secondment' as stated in
your e-mail transmitted on 29 August 2019 @ 00:48 hrs.
 
The Authority relied upon Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 this provides an exemption from the obligation to release personal
data if disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles
enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1998.  We believe that releasing any
details, would breach the first principle of the 1998 Act, that personal
data “should be processed fairly and lawfully”.  There are a number of
decisions from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in support of
its contentions to refuse the request.
 

* The reasonable expectations of the individual. -  In the case of Rob
Waugh –v- Information Commissioners Office and Doncaster College
(EA/2008/0038 29 December, 2008), it was stated that there was a
‘recognised expectation that the internal disciplinary matters of an
individual would be private.’

 

* The legitimate interests versus the rights of the individual. - Again,
in the case of Peter Dun –v- Information Commissioners Office and the
National Audit Office (EA/2010/0060 18 January, 2011) it was mentioned
that this balance between public interest against private interest
should be seen in the context as to whether anybody would ‘learn
anything new’ that was not already in the public domain or from which
the individual had either consented to publication or otherwise made
matters public.

 
The ICO indicate that consideration needs to be given to the ‘likely
consequences of disclosure.’ In that could disclosure cause
damage/distress to the individual(s) concerned.
 
I have considered your appeal against the refusal to reply in relation to
provision of information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000.
 
Taking all the evidence into account, having due regard to the
requirements of the relevant legislation in protecting personal
information, my decision is that your appeal is refused and therefore
unsuccessful under section 40(2) Personal Information, of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. 
 
If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint on a review
having taken place, you may appeal directly to the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a decision. 
 
The ICO can be contacted at:
 
Information Commissioner's Office, 
Wycliffe House, 
Water Lane, 
Wilmslow, 
Cheshire, 
SK9 5AF.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Ray Khaliq
Director of Technical Services
Cleveland Fire Brigade
Endeavour House
Training & Admin Hub
Stockton Road
Hartlepool
TS25 5TH 
T. 01429 872311
M. 07740152975
[1][email address]
 
 
 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd B A Kunin anodiad ()

Tom,

1 I notice that the Authority has yet to answer your supplemental requests for information.
2 I wonder how indepedent the review that was conducted about your initial requests given that the person reviewing was Ray Khaliq who is also a director of the CIC.I suggest that you appeal the refusal via the ICO.
3. The CIC is also a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA- submit requests to the CIC, also. It can be done via Whatdotheyknow