Dear Northamptonshire County Council,

This request is being made to make the public at large and people in each authority aware of which councils are the worst offenders or the better examples when it comes to bullying in the workplace. All councils have very similar anti-bullying / dignity at work policies, but there seems to be a difference in the level of bullying. This is intended to statistically show those differences.

1) How many employees of your authority have
made an
official complaint of harassment and bullying at work since the 1st April 2009?

2) How many of these complaints were upheld in favour of the
complainant?

3) How many of those which were not upheld in favour of the
complainant went on to Appeal?

4) How many of those that went to Appeal were found to favour the
complainant?

5) How many complaints went on to an Employment Tribunal?

6) How many of these were found to uphold the complaint?

7) Out of how many of those allegations (the number given to question 1) did the complainant of
bullying claim that the bullies were telling lies?

8) How many staff does your authority have and what is the current population within your authority's area?

Yours faithfully

Mr Lewis

yabootoyou

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your email - 28 complaints of bullying and not one found in favour of the complainant looks to me like the worst record of those councils that have already replied. This would certainly put me off working for your authority.

Please clarify which particular section of the Act is being used to refuse question 7, as the various sections are quite different. Please also justify your refusal and explain why or how providing a figure of numbers could potentially identify someone, as I cannot see this myself.

Yours sincerely,

Yabootoyou

Dear Freedom of Information,

In your reply of the 3rd December you state "and could with other information which may be in the public domain lead to the cross referencing and identification of a data subject. " This wasn't originally relied upon. You also says "which may be in the public domain...". Or may not and therefore wouldn't lead to cross referencing. The Act surely applies to a real risk, not completely hypothetical situation.

Below is a list of other replies so far received and you will note that I have had replies to question 7.

I believe you to be applying in blanket fashion this section without any justification, as confirmed by your use of "may" and this wasn't originally relied upon in your original refusal, yet has been used as justification since.

I would therefore like a review of this part of your reply.

Peter Lewis

Cheshire West (ICO)

1) 10 2) 1 3) 1 4) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7) 1 8) AND 329,600

Cheshire East (ICO)

1) 62 (exc school employees) 2) 18 3) 4 4) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7) 8) AND 370,127

Kent

1) 60 2) 18 3) 6 4) 0 5) 3 6) 0 7) 8) 9,111 AND 1,510,540

Wiltshire

1) 62 2) 10 3) 2 4) 1 (plus 1 in progress) 5) 1 (in progress) 6) 0 (but 1 in progress) 7) - 8) 4865 and 471,000.

Cambs

1) 30 2) 7 3) 3 4) 0 5) 0 6) - 7) - 8) 5631 and 635,100

Durham (from Apr 2012)

1) 18 2) 4 3) 9 4) 1 5) 0 6) - 7) 3 8) 8569 and 517,773

Lincs

1) 23 2) 20 3) 2 4) 1 5) 0 6) - 7) not recorded 8) 5166 and 731,500

Somerset

1) 6 2) 5 3) 0 4) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7) 0 8) 11,911 and 541,609

Telford and Wrekin

1) 12 2) 03) 04) 05) 06) NA 7) NA 8) 166,641

Rutland (review then ICO)

1) 8 2) 2 3) Refused 4) Refused 5) Refused 6) Refused 7) Too costly 8) 460 and 37,000 5Q 2 initially refused)

West Berks

1) 5 2) 4 3) 0 4) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7) 2 8) 1548 and 155, 732

Dorset

1) 6 2) 2 (partially) 3) 1 4) 0 5) 2 6) 1 witheld, 1 settled 7) 0 8) 4245 and 416,720

Herefordshire (back to 2012)

1) 4 2) 4 3)NA 4) NA 5) NA 6) NA 7) 0 8) 1286 and 186,100

Herts

1) 76 2) 5 3) 10 4) 0 5) 8 6) 2 7) 0 8) 8526 and 1,154,800

Denbigh (out of time)

1) 18 2) 10 3) 2 4) 0 5) 0 6) NA 7) 2 8) 3607 and 94,791

Essex

1) 73 2) 8 3) 3 4) 0 5) 1 6) 0 7) Refused 8) 8734 and 1,400,000

Devon

1) 23 2) 9 3) 2 4) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7) not recorded 8) 4397 and 1,159,000

Powys (from 1st Jan 2015)

1) 2 2) 0 3) 0 4) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7) 0 8) 5904 and 132,705

Northamptonshire (from Sept 2010) Challenge Q7 refusal

1) 28 2) 0 3) 3 4) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7) Refused 8) 4499 and 714,392

Norfolk

1) 29 2) 5 3) 0 4) - 5) 0 6) 0 7) - 8) CALC and 877,700

Leicestershire

1) 163 2) Refused 3) Refused 4) Refused 5) 8 6) Refused 7) Refused 8) 6736 and 650,500

Warwickshire

1) 8 2) 3 3) 0 4) NA 5) 0 6) NA 7) NA 8) 5227 and 551,594

Hartlepool

1) 2 2) 0 3) 0 4) NA 5) 0 6) NA 7) 0 8) 2,500 and 97,000

North Somerset

1) 12 2) 0 3) 2 4) 1 (pt) 5) 1 6) 0 7) 0 8) 3,980 and AWAITING

Yours sincerely,

Yabootoyou

Dear Freedom of Information,

Hidden in your response is "Our initial response for Q7 should have advised of this" (i.e. refused due to cost, not for any other reason). I shall consider applying to the ICO on this - it is unacceptable.

Yours sincerely,

Yabootoyou

Dear Freedom of Information,

I would like to add the following question to my request.

Q9) Out of the number in the response to question 1, how many of
the complainants said that they had been called "a loner"?

Yours sincerely,

Mr Lewis

Yabootoyou