Decision
Mr X and Kerry County Council
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159420-Y0H0T8
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159420-Y0H0T8
Published on
Whether the Council was justified, under section 37(1) of the FOI Act, in redacting the names of staff members who carried out maintenance works at a named cliff walk on the ground that release of their names would reveal personal information
10 October 2025
In a request dated 28 November 2024, the applicant sought access to all records of maintenance and monitoring of a named cliff walk during 2017, 2021, and 2022.
On 14 February 2025, the Council part-granted the applicant’s request and released eight redacted timesheets filled out by employees containing details of work undertaken on the cliff walk. The Council redacted information contained on the timesheets that is outside the scope of the request and also redacted parts of the timesheets, including the employee’s name, address and wages information on the ground that this information is personal information that is exempt from release under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. The Council also refused access to further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the grounds that no further records exist or could be found within the scope of the request.
On 23 February 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the Council’s decision to withhold information under section 37 of the Act and referred to the definition of personal information in the Act concerning the staff of FOI bodies. The applicant made no reference to the Council’s decision to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. On 12 March 2025, the Council affirmed its original decision to redact certain information under section 37(1) of the Act. On 2 June 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision to refuse information under sections 15(1)(a) and 37(1) of the Act.
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 outlined above and to the submissions made by the Council and the applicant. I have also had regard to the contents of the records concerned. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
In his application to this Office, in addition to requesting a review of the Council’s decision to refuse certain information under section 37(1) of the Act, the applicant also sought a review of the Council’s original decision to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. However, when making his request to the Council for an internal review of its original decision, the applicant solely requested a review of the Council’s decision to refuse personal information under section 37(1) of the Act. The jurisdiction of this Office is based on the wording of the original FOI request and internal review request. This Office does not have jurisdiction to consider the release of any records that the applicant did not seek in his original request or to review an FOI Body's decision in relation to particular records where an applicant has not sought to have these decisions reviewed. Both the applicant and the Council have been informed of this.
Furthermore, during the course of this review the applicant limited the basis of his appeal to the names of the workers on the timesheets which the Council redacted under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the scope of this review is solely concerned with whether the Council was justified under section 37(1) of the FOI Act in redacting the staff names contained on the relevant timesheets.
Section 37(1) of the FOI Act provides that, subject to the other provisions of the section, an FOI body shall refuse a request if access to the record concerned would involve the disclosure of personal information.
Section 2 of the FOI Act defines personal information as information about an identifiable individual that, either (a) would, in the ordinary course of events, be known only to the individual or members of the family, or friends, of the individual, or (b) is held by an FOI body on the understanding that it would be treated by that body as confidential. Section 2 goes on to specify 14 categories of information which, without prejudice to the generality of the above definition, constitute personal information.
However, the definition at section 2 provides that personal information does not include:
“(I) in a case where the individual holds or held—
(A) office as a director of,
(B) a position as a member of the staff of, or
(C) any other office, or any other position, remunerated from public funds in,
an FOI body, the name of the individual or information relating to the office or position or its functions or the terms upon and subject to which the individual holds or held that office or occupies or occupied that position or anything written or recorded in any form by the individual in the course of and for the purpose of the performance of the functions aforesaid”.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council said the relevant records are the timesheets completed to facilitate an employee being paid in line with an employee’s contractual obligations. The Council stated that the employees’ name, home address, point on the pay scale, and mobility allowances etc are personal information to the employee and as such is covered under section 37 of the Act. The Council stated that to release the employee’s name along with the redacted timesheet would identify the allowances/overtime the employee may be entitled to as part of their employment contract. The Council said that the function carried out by the employee (i.e. the maintenance) is already disclosed in the released records, along with the number of hours maintenance. The Council said that releasing the name of the employees would allow someone to deduce that the employee may receive allowances and/or overtime. The Council stated that this would impinge on the employees’ right to privacy.
The Council also said that the names and signatures of the staff checking and certifying the timesheet are disclosed in the records released to the applicant in line with Section 2 of the Act as they are carrying out a function of their role. The Council said that the information on the timesheet would not be readily available to the general public. The Council also said that the name of the employees who filled out the timesheet are not technically within the scope of the request for maintenance records.
The applicant was given an update on the Council’s submissions and was provided with an opportunity to make submissions of his own, which he duly did.
The applicant noted that the Council was willing to release the names of the staff checking and certifying the timesheets as this was part of their functions and argued that the same reasoning should be applied to the names of the staff who filled out the timesheet too. The applicant said that he is not looking for information regarding the employment history, contractual terms, or other personal details of the employees who filled out the timesheets. The applicant said his request is limited solely to the name of the individual(s) who performed the maintenance or monitoring on the cliff walk as part of their official duties.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council said that the record of maintenance could be considered to only include the text description on the time sheet indicating the hours worked on the cliff walk. It questioned whether the information sought even meets the scope of the applicant’s request. As noted above, the applicant sought access to all records of maintenance and monitoring of a named cliff walk during 2017, 2021, and 2022. The Council identified the timesheets as the relevant records and provided the applicant with extracts from the relevant timesheets containing maintenance details. I am satisfied that the name of the Council employee along with the other information concerning the maintenance works falls within the scope of the applicant’s request.
As noted above, the definition of personal information excludes the name of a member of staff of an FOI body, or anything written or recorded in any form by the individual in the course of and for the purpose of the performance of his or her functions. The exclusion at paragraph (I) does not exclude all information relating to staff members. This exclusion is intended, in essence, to ensure that section 37 cannot be used to exempt the identity of a staff member in the context of the particular position held or any records created by the staff member while carrying out his or her official functions, or information relating to the terms, conditions or functions of positions. The exclusion does not deprive public servants of the right to privacy generally.
While I accept that certain information which the Council redacted from the timesheets it released to the applicant is personal information, as noted above the applicant is solely seeking the name of the employee who undertook the maintenance work outlined in the records that were released him. The applicant is not seeking any personal information relating to Council employees. I do not agree with the Council’s argument that the release of the names of the staff who carried out the work at the cliff walk, along with the information already released by the Council, would disclose personal information of those staff members.
Having had regard to the content of the timesheets at issue and the submissions from both the Council and the applicant, it is clear to me that the information entered into the timesheets was recorded by Council employees in the course of and for the purpose of the performance of their functions. Accordingly, I find that the names of those employees contained in the relevant records fall within the exclusion at paragraph (I), such that they are not included within the definition of personal information at section 2 of the FOI Act. Accordingly, I find that section 37(1) does not apply to this information.
As I have found that section 37(1) does not apply to the staff names at issue in this case, there is no need for me to consider the other provisions of section 37, including the public interest test.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Council’s decision to redact the names of its employees who carried out the maintenance works at cliff walk and I direct the Council to release a copy of the relevant records containing those names to the applicant.
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.
Richard Crowley
Investigator