Decision
Mr X and University College Dublin
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-142867-F2B0S5
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-142867-F2B0S5
Published on
Whether UCD was justified in refusing access to information contained in records submitted to the Job Grading Committee and scoring by the Committee for certain posts under sections 30(1)(a) or (b) of the FOI Act
11 June 2024
In a request dated 22 May 2023, the applicant sought access to:
“The current pay scales for the post of Senior Systems Manager UCD IT Services. Copies of documents submitted for consideration to the Job Grading Committee for their meeting held on the 16 May 2023. Specifically, for any administrative scale posts above AO1 only, including the scoring by the committee for each post considered above AO1 only.”
Following the applicant’s FOI request, UCD wrote to the applicant and extended the time to process his request. On 21 July 2023, UCD issued its decision one week later than the decision due date. UCD identified applications to the job sizing committee for four positions in the University as falling within the scope of the applicant’s request. Each application contains (i) an application form (ii) the job description to be advertised and (iii) the current organisation chart. UCD released the job descriptions and organisation charts and it redacted information contained in each of the four application forms and the final scores contained in the job sizing committee scoresheets under sections 29(1) (deliberations of FOI bodies) and 30(1)(a) or (b) (functions and negotiations of FOI bodies) of the FOI Act.
UCD did not issue its internal review decision within the statutory time frame contained in the FOI Act. The applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision on the basis of a deemed refusal of his request. Following communications with this Office, UCD issued its effective position to the applicant on 2 October 2023. UCD varied its original decision, it stated that part one of the applicant’s request was inadvertently overlooked and it released the current pay scales for the post of Senior Systems Manager to the applicant. UCD affirmed its decision to refuse access to information contained in each of the four application forms and the final scores contained in the job sizing committee scoresheets under sections 29(1) and 30(1)(a) or (b) of the FOI Act.
During the course of the review, this Office provided the applicant and UCD with an opportunity to make submissions. In its submissions, UCD stated that it no longer wished to rely on section 29(1) of the FOI Act and it was relying on sections 30(1)(a) or (b) of the FOI Act in refusing access to the withheld information. This Office provided the applicant with an update in relation to UCD’s revised position and the applicant provided further comments and observations in support of his application for review. Following communications with this Office, UCD agreed to provide the applicant with the job sizing committee scoresheets. The applicant confirmed that he required both the scoresheets and also the information withheld from the applications to job sizing committee. It was necessary, therefore, to conclude the review with a written decision.
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 submissions made to date. I have also had regard to the contents of the records concerned and to the provisions of the FOI Act. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The scope of this review is confined to whether UCD was justified in its decision to refuse access to information contained in the job sizing application forms under sections 30(1)(a) or (b) of the FOI Act.
As outlined above, UCD failed to issue its original decision within the extended time period for processing the applicant’s FOI request. UCD also failed to issue an internal review decision within the statutory time frame contained in the FOI Act. In the circumstances, it is important for me to emphasise to UCD that its obligation to issue decisions on FOI requests within the periods set out in the FOI Act is clear and unequivocal. UCD should take steps to ensure that its decisions on FOI requests issue within the relevant statutory timeframes.
Although I am obliged to give reasons for my decision, section 25(3) requires all reasonable precautions to be taken in the course of a review to prevent disclosure of information contained in an exempt record. This means that the description which I can give of the record at issue and the material that I can refer to in the analysis is limited.
Finally, the release of a record under the FOI Act is understood, effectively, to be equivalent to its release to the world at large.
The Records
While I am limited in the extent to which I can describe the contents of the records at issue, I believe it would be useful to provide some background information in relation to them. UCD states that certain professional or administrative roles are subject to the job sizing process either when they are new positions or if the job descriptions for existing roles are to be updated. It states that if a school/unit wishes to create a new role, they must ensure that it has been submitted via the job sizing process to ensure that it is reviewed and that the grade is assigned in a consistent manner against the published grading system and in line with other roles in the University. UCD states that it is the line management that makes the job sizing application. UCD states that that there are two specific application types: (i) standard job sizing which covers new roles that a school/unit wishes to fill and existing roles that were previously graded and are now either vacant or soon to be vacant and (ii) job sizing framework which covers exceptional cases where a role in which an incumbent sits has grown over time and a line manager wishes to have the role re-sized. UCD states that in both cases, the application form is used for the school/unit to fill in information relating to the role in the context of their own specific school/unit against six published factors being measured to give context to the role. Two of the roles at issue in this case are under the standard job sizing process and two under the job sizing framework. UCD has withheld information provided in relation to the six factors from each of the four application forms.
Section 30 Functions and negotiations of FOI Bodies
UCD has relied on sections 30(1)(a)/(b) of the Act in refusing access to parts of the application forms at issue. Having regard to the contents of the records, it seems to me that section 30(1)(b) is the more appropriate exemption provision to consider first.
Section 30(1)(b) – functions relating to management
Section 30(1)(b) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the FOI body considers that access to the record concerned could reasonably be expected to have a significant, adverse effect on the performance by an FOI body of any of its functions relating to management (including industrial relations and management of its staff). Where an FOI body relies on section 30(1)(b), it should identify the function relating to management concerned and it should identify the significant adverse effect on the performance of that function which is envisaged. The FOI body must then make an assessment of the degree of significance attaching to the adverse effects claimed. Establishing “significant adverse effect” requires stronger evidence of damage than the “prejudice” standard in section 30(1)(a) and other sections of the FOI Act. Having identified the significant adverse effect envisaged, the FOI body should then explain how release of the particular information in the records could cause the harm and consider the reasonableness of its expectation that the harm will occur.
A claim for exemption under section 30(1)(b) must be made on its merits and in light of the contents of the particular record concerned and the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In examining the merits of an FOI body's view that the harm identified could reasonably be expected by the release of records, the Commissioner does not have to be satisfied that such an outcome will definitely occur. The test is not concerned with the question of probabilities or possibilities. It is concerned with whether or not the decision maker's expectation is reasonable. It is sufficient for the FOI body to show that it expects an outcome and that its expectations are justifiable in the sense that there are adequate grounds for the expectations. Section 30(1) is subject to a public interest balancing test at section 30(2).
In his application to this Office, the applicant states there is no evidence that the release of the specific information requested would have any significant, adverse effects on the performance of UCD, including functions relating to management. He states that many of the job roles mentioned in UCD's response are newly created ones. He states that neither the public nor other concerned individuals outside senior management partake in the decision-making process for creation of new job roles in UCD, and so have no ability to effect it. He states even if this were not the case, the degree of broadness employed when creating a new job role is so extensive that it would provide minimal use to any other person attempting to manufacture an application to create a new job role. The applicant states regarding existing job roles which may be submitted to be graded at either a lower level or a higher one, only department managers and heads of departments submit these applications. He states it is simply not possible to circumvent this and an individual cannot decide to complete an application for submission. He states that in this context, knowledge of details included in other applications does not create a significant adverse effect. He states that should a role align precisely with a previous application, it may potentially use some of these details but these details, which are already now known to the area management, can only be used by department managers and heads of departments. It cannot be used by individuals to undermine the grading process as only heads of departments can identify a need for a grading and only they can submit the application.
UCD states that job sizing is a scientific exercise designed to measure whether or not a post is correctly graded. It states that completion of the application form is an intensive process, where the applicant (the line manager) is required to provide detailed information about the role and how the role sits within their own school/unit. It says a key aspect of this process is that applications are made independently and offer unbiased and accurate information on the role being graded and the schools/units in which the roles sit. It says the information included must provide an accurate picture specific to each school. It argues that there would be a significant adverse effect on this process if applicants were copying information from the applications supplied by other schools/units. It states that sharing other applications would mean sharing information that is not relevant for their application and would risk information being copied and pasted from other applications rather than providing this independent account from their school/unit.
I have carefully examined the records at issue. I note that applications under the job sizing process require managers to provide detailed information on the role using six factors. These factors are work complexity, decision making, relationships, capability, impact and supervision. I have compared the job sizing application forms to the job descriptions which were released to the applicant. I am satisfied that considerably more detailed information is contained in the job sizing applications. The applications contain detailed information on the relevant school or unit, the various roles within their school or unit, budgetary matters, the school or unit strategy and the overall university strategy. In the case of the job sizing framework roles, managers are required to demonstrate how a role has grown over an extended period of time based on operational need and how this growth justifies a re-grade.
The applications at issue contain information about how managers align staffing and budgets with the objectives and strategy of their unit while supporting the core objectives of the UCD strategy. It seems to me, that this type of information could certainly be used by managers submitting future applications to the jobs sizing committee. I understand applications have to be submitted independently and I note that UCD do not share previous applications with managers. I accept that accuracy is important to ensure that a role is given an appropriate grade. I also accept that if the job sizing applications are released this could reasonably be expected to undermine the integrity of the job sizing process by allowing the use of this information for future applications making it significantly more difficult for the job sizing committee to distinguish between roles and assign an appropriate grade to a particular role. Job sizing is a management-led process and I am satisfied that release of the withheld information from the job applications could reasonably be expected to have a significant, adverse effect on the performance by UCD of its functions relating to management. I find therefore, that the information withheld from the applications is exempt under section 30(1)(b) of the Act.
Section 30(2) The Public Interest
Section 30(2) of the Act provides that section 30(1) shall not apply if the public interest would, on balance, be better served by granting than by refusing to grant the FOI request concerned.
In his application to this Office, the applicant states that transparency and accountability are fundamental principles in the operation of publicly funded bodies. He states that recent incidents in other public bodies underscore the ramifications of payments and salary decisions made by small cores of staff with no oversight that lead to poor outcomes and a lack of equality-based decisions. He states that the responsibility for determination of remuneration for newly graded job roles in UCD lies solely with the job grading committee comprising three individuals. He states that disclosing details of their interpretations on grading allocation would not harm but rather enhance the work of the committee by providing clarity and transparency. In further comments to this Office, the applicant states that contrary to UCD's position of significant harm being caused by the release of this information, that no significant harm will be caused by allowing an open, transparent view of payments decisions. He states however it is very likely that in fact significant harm is and will be caused by not releasing this information to the public. He states that this is because we have no access to the payments decisions of this small committee and he asks how do we know their decisions on payments funded by the public exchequer are being made in a fair and equal way while also in the best interest of the public.
UCD says the contention that responsibility for determination of remuneration for newly graded job roles in UCD lies solely with the job grading committee is an incorrect statement of the process. It states that in the case of vacant roles, a unit/school will decide what grade they wish to apply for (and seek upper management and financial authorisation to proceed with their preferred grade). It states that usually, it is linked with overall staff planning under their management unit and with budgetary permissions along with the specific piece of work that they wish this new role to cover. UCD states that before they advertise, they also need to ensure that the role has been graded by the job sizing committee, so they draft their application to apply for that particular grade via the job sizing process. UCD states that the permission to authorize the post is not that of the job sizing committee, their role is to simply review the documentation provided to them against the published criteria and they will agree a final score which outlines the grade. It states that once the sizing process is completed, and the resulting grade agreed by the school/unit, they will proceed to advertise via the UCD Resourcing section of HR. It states that all administrative grades have salary scales with at least 6 points and up to 15 points on the scale depending on the particular grade and many of these salary scales overlap. It states that the actual remuneration that is agreed for a particular successful candidate is agreed between the UCD HR Resourcing unit and the school/unit. UCD states that this can be budget related and the job sizing committee has no part to play here. UCD argues that release of the withheld information would impair the integrity and viability of the decision-making process to a significant degree without countervailing benefit to the public and on balance the public interest would not be better served by releasing the information at issue.
I accept that the applications to the job sizing committee and their decisions in relation to these applications are part of a process in determining grades for positions and are relevant to payment decisions. However, I also accept that this is one part of a wider process and that managers decide what grade to apply for, approval of senior management is required when making the application and budgetary factors must also be considered. I accept that when a grade is agreed, the actual pay a candidate receives will be a particular point on a scale and this point is not determined by the job sizing committee. It seems to me, therefore, that to say responsibility for payment decisions lies solely with the job sizing committee is an over simplification of the process.
There is a public interest in facilitating openness and accountability in how public bodies carry out their functions. I accept the applicant’s contention that release of the withheld information would promote transparency in relation to the decision-making process at issue here. However, in my view the public interest in openness and transparency in relation to the job sizing process is served to a certain extent by the detailed information on the job sizing policy and process including a detailed outline of the scoring system and FAQ which is publicly available and can be found on the UCD HR website: https://www.ucd.ie/hr/promotionsgrading/jobsizing/ . The public interest in transparency has been also been served to an extent by the release of the job descriptions and organisation charts which were submitted to the job sizing committee for the four positions at issue. In addition, following communications with this Office, UCD agreed to release the committee’s score sheets to the applicant for each of the four positions at issue. This allows the applicant to examine the job descriptions against the scoring the committee assigned to each position. This information gives some insight into the decision making process and interpretations on grading allocation. The score sheets show the requested grade and the recommended grade of the job grading committee and the scores awarded by the committee for each position under each of the relevant factors work complexity, decision making, relationships, capability, impact and supervision.
The UCD job sizing policy states that “Job sizing is a management-initiated process, designed to align role design and work organisation with the operational needs of the University and ensure appropriate pay grades which recognise the value of the role.” I accept that releasing the records could create a real risk of information being copied from other applications rather than providing an independent account from their own school/unit. In my view, this could reasonably be expected to a significant adverse effect on
job sizing process making it more difficult for the committee to distinguish between roles and assign an appropriate grade to a particular role. In the circumstances, I find that the public interest would, on balance, be better served by refusing access to the information withheld from the job sizing applications.
As I have found that the information at issue is exempt under section 30(1)(b) of the Act, it is not necessary to consider section 30(1)(a) of the Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm UCD’s decision. I find that UCD was justified in refusing access to the information at issue under section 30(1)(b) of the Act.
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.
Jim Stokes
Investigator