Decision
Mr X and Workplace Relations Commission
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152756-Q2F2K0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152756-Q2F2K0
Published on
15 January 2025
On 9 April 2024, the applicant submitted a request for the amount of money spent by the WRC and PRU Adjudication Services on complaint procedures involving the applicant during a specified period, and a breakdown of all figures, for example the people who received this money and for what services were provided. As the WRC did not issue a decision on the request within the statutory time-frame, the applicant requested an internal review of the deemed refusal of his request on 11 September 2024. As the WRC again failed to issue a decision within the statutory time-frame, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the refusal of his request on 10 October 2024. The WRC issued a late internal review decision on 16 October 2024, wherein it refused the request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the basis that the records sought do not exist.
During the course of the review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the WRC’s submissions wherein it outlined its reasons for concluding that it does not hold the records sought. The applicant was invited to make further submissions. At the time of writing, no further submissions have been received from the applicant.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence referred to above. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the WRC was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, to records containing details of the amount of money spent by the WRC and PRU Adjudication Services on complaint procedures involving the applicant during a specified period, and a breakdown of all figures.
It is important to note that while the purpose of the FOI Act is to enable members of the public to obtain access to information held by public bodies, the mechanism for doing so is by accessing records held by those bodies. A person wishing to obtain information from a public body must make a request for records that contain the information sought. Requests for information, as opposed to requests for records, are not valid requests under the FOI Act, except to the extent that a request for information can reasonably be inferred to be a request for a record containing the information sought. It is also important to note that the Act does not require FOI bodies to create records if none exist, apart from a specific requirement under section 17(4) of the Act to extract records or existing information held on electronic devices, which is not relevant in this case
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. Our role in a case such as this, is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether the decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
As I have outlined above, the WRC provided this Office with submissions detailing its reasons for concluding that no records exist in this case, details of which were provided to the applicant. While I do not propose to repeat those details in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them for the purpose of this review.
WRC said all correspondence received is placed on a case file and shared with the other party to the case. It said the files are allocated adjudication numbers on its case management system, CAS. It said Adjudication Files are opened on CAS and the collated file is placed in a bundle and the WRC updates this bundle as correspondence is added to the file. It said records are manually scanned and uploaded to CAS and that any expenses raised such as an interpreter would be noted on the file. It said it searched the applicant’s adjudication case files and that there were no records of expenses raised in those files.
The WRC added that its corporate unit would hold invoices of any expenses raised and fee claims of any external adjudicators who are contractors. It said fee claims are submitted by external adjudication officers only and are tracked bi-weekly by an officer in the Adjudication Post-Registration Unit (PRU) on an Excel sheet that is saved to an internal electronic storage system called eDocs. It said fee claims are not noted on CAS. It said fee claims are tracked and paid by days worked. It said multiple cases can be heard per day and that dates are recorded but not adjudication file references. It said the PRU does not hold a record of the adjudication reference and the adjudicator fee claim. It said it checked the adjudication files on the CAS and checked with the corporate section and the Head of Adjudication and that neither corporate nor adjudication had any records of the cost of individual complaint procedures. In sum, it said it does not hold records of the cost of running individual complaints.
Where an FOI body refuses a request for records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act the question this Office must consider is whether the body has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. We do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records should or might exist, or rejects an FOI body's explanation of why a record does not exist. The test in section 15(1)(a) is whether the body has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record(s) sought.
Having regard to the details of the WRC’s submissions, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that further relevant searches should have been undertaken, I am satisfied that the WRC has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records in this case. I find, therefore, that the WRC was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to records containing details of the amount of money spent by the WRC and PRU Adjudication Services on complaint procedures involving the applicant during a specified period, and a breakdown of all figures, on the ground that no relevant records containing that information exist.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of the WRC to refuse, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for details of the amount of money spent on complaint procedures involving the applicant during a specified period on the ground that the records sought do not exist.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator