Date:11June2012
J Willis
By email:
Dear Ms Willis
Re: Request for Information – Employment Tribunal Cases – Internal Review – CEX/8KEC43/IR
I refer to your e-mail dated 5 September 2011 which has been treated as a request for an internal review of the Council’s response to your request for information of 2 August 2011. Your request for information was as follows:
“Please provide details of all employment tribunals brought against ManchesterCity Council since 1st April 2010. The response should include the following information for each case:-
1. Month/Year
2. Outcome
3. Employment status of plaintiff (permanent, fixed term, Manchester Temp, agency)
4. Reason for tribunal claim (unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, discrimination etc.)
5. Outcome (upheld, rejected, withdrawn, settled)
No personal information if required.”
I find that the Council’s response of 1 September 2011 mistakenly took the view that your request (CEX/8KEC43) was adequately answered by the Council’s response to an earlier request you had made (CEX/8GXDBE and its associated internal review CEX/8GXDBE-C) covering similar subject matter which had been refused on the basis that the statutory cost limit would be exceeded if the information concerned was provided. However, I consider that your later request (CEX/8KEC43) was distinct from your earlier one in that you were asking for information covering a significantly reduced timeframe.
I confirm that the Council does hold information coming within the scope of your request and that it is able to provide it to you without the statutory cost limit being exceeded. The requested information is provided below.
During the period in question, namely 1st April 2010 to 2nd August 2011, a total of 68 claims were issued in the employment tribunals against Manchester City Council as named respondent.
I have provided the information requested in the form of a table. In summary, of the 68 claims, the Council settled 39: won 3; and lost 1. The claimant withdrew in 20 cases. The remaining 5 cases are ongoing.
It is not possible to categorise claims by tribunal jurisdiction, given that many of the claims involve more than one jurisdiction. Nevertheless, I have provided details of the relevant jurisdiction code in each case, together with a key explaining the codes.
The details below do not include the ongoing equal pay multiple against the Council. The nature of the multiple is such that new claimants are added to and removed from the litigation as it progresses. The equal pay multiple has yet to be determined.
Number / Issue date / Type / Status / Outcome1 / Nov 2010 / UD / Other / Withdrawn
2 / Aug 2010 / UD / Other / Settled
3 / Jul 2010 / UD / Employee / Settled
4 / May 2010 / WTR / Employee / Settled
5 / Jul 2010 / TU, WA / Employee / Settled
6 / Jul 2010 / WA / Employee / Settled
7 / Jan 2011 / UD, DDA / Employee / Settled
8 / Jan 2011 / UD / Employee / Settled
9 / Jan 2011 / WA/BOC / Other / Settled
10 / Jun 2010 / UD, BOC, RPT / Other / Settled
11 / July 2010 / DDA, SO / Employee / Settled
12 / Sep 2010 / DDA, SO / Employee / Settled
13 / Dec 2010 / DDA, SO / Employee / Settled
14 / Mar 2011 / UD, WA / Employee / Settled
15 / Jan 2011 / WA / Other / Settled
16 / Jun 2011 / UD, SXD/MAT, RRA / Employee / Ongoing
17 / Jun 2011 / UD, RRA, WA / Employee / Ongoing
18 / Feb 2011 / UD / Employee / Lost
19 / Dec 2010 / UD / Employee / Settled
20 / May 2010 / UD, BOC/WA / Employee / Settled
21 / Oct 2010 / EQP / Employee / Settled
22 / Jun 2010 / UD, BOC/WA / Employee / Settled
23 / Jun 2010 / DDA / Employee / Withdrawn
24 / May 2011 / UD / Employee / Withdrawn
25 / Mar 2011 / UD / Employee / Settled
26 / May 2011 / WA / Employee / Withdrawn
27 / Jun 2011 / UD, WA/BOC / Employee / Withdrawn
28 / Jun 2011 / UD, WA/BOC / Employee / Withdrawn
29 / Aug 2010 / EQP / Employee / Settled
30 / Sep 2010 / UD, SDA / Employee / Settled
31 / Oct 2010 / WA, WTR / Employee / Settled
32 / Oct 2010 / UD / Employee / Settled
33 / Apr 2011 / UD, SXD, FTE / Other / Settled
34 / May 2011 / UD / Employee / Withdrawn
35 / Jan 2011 / EQP / Employee / Withdrawn
36 / Jan 2011 / UD, DDA / Employee / Withdrawn
37 / Aug 2010 / SXD, DDA, SO, UD / Employee / Settled
38 / Jun 2011 / FTE, UD, DDA, BOC / Other / Ongoing
39 / Jun 2011 / UD / Employee / Withdrawn
40 / Jun 2011 / UD, DDA / Employee / Settled
41 / Jan 2011 / EQP / Employee / Settled
42 / July 2010 / TU, DDA / Employee / Settled
43 / Aug 2010 / RRA, WA, DDA / Employee / Ongoing
44 / Feb 2011 / DDA, GRD, WA / Employee / Ongoing
45 / Jun 2010 / WA / Employee / Withdraw
46 / May 2010 / DDA / Employee / Withdrawn
47 / Jan 2011 / PIDA, SXD / Employee / Won
48 / Mar 2011 / DDA, UD / Employee / Settled
49 / May 2011 / UD / Other / Withdrawn
50 / Jan 2011 / UD, RRA / Employee / Settled
51 / Dec 2010 / UD, DDA / Employee / Settled
52 / May 2010 / UD / Employee / Withdrawn
53 / Dec 2010 / RRA, UD / Other / Withdrawn
54 / May 2011 / UD, WA, HR / Employee / Settled
55 / Oct 2010 / PTP/SXD / Employee / Withdrawn
56 / May 2011 / PTP/SXD / Employee / Withdrawn
57 / Apr 2011 / PTP/SXD / Employee / Settled
58 / Nov 2010 / PTP/SXD / Employee / Won
59 / Oct 2010 / PTP/SXD / Employee / Settled
60 / Jul 2011 / PTP/SXD / Employee / Won
61 / May 2011 / PTP/SXD / Employee / Settled
62 / June 2010 / UD / Employee / Withdrawn
63 / July 2010 / UD / Employee / Withdrawn
64 / Sep 2010 / SXD/MAT / Employee / Settled
65 / Jun 2010 / UD / Employee / Settled
66 / May 2010 / UD, WA / Employee / Settled
67 / Jun 2010 / UD, WA, AD / Employee / Withdrawn
68 / Jan 2011 / UD / Employee / Settled
List of relevant tribunal jurisdictions
ADage discrimination
BOCbreach of contract
DDAdisability discrimination
EQPequal pay
FTEfixed term employment regulations
GRDgender reassignment discrimination
HRhuman rights
MATpregnancy/maternity
PIDApublic interest disclosure
PTPpart-time pensions
RPTpart time workers regulations
RRArace discrimination
SOsexual orientation discrimination
SXDsex discrimination
TUtrade union activities/membership
UDunfair dismissal
WAwages
WTRworking time regulations
In respect of the 9 cases where the claimant’s employment status is given as “Other”, 4 were cases involving workers from Manchester Temps, 3 were casual workers, 1 was employed on a fixed term contract and 1 was self-employed. Given the small number of claimants in each of these 4 categories and the associated risk of individuals being identified, they have not been separately classified in the table above. The Council considers that it is entitled to adopt this approach on the basis of the exemption provided by s.40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). Disclosure of information that could enable particular individuals to be identified and thereby linked to the information contained in the above table would amount a breach of one or more of the data protection principles, including that which requires that personal information be processed fairly and lawfully. The Council does not consider that it would be in claimants’ reasonable expectations that personal information concerning their claims would be released to the world at large (as a release under the 2000 Act is considered to be).
I hope the above information satisfies your request for information.
My internal review has also found that the Council failed to respond to your request within the statutory timescale provided by the 2000 Act (as it took 21 working days to do so) and that it subsequently failed to undertake your requested internal review within a timescale compatible with the Council’s Access to Information Complaint and Appeal Procedure.
I apologise on behalf of the Council for the failings identified above.
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
Liz Treacy
Head of Legal Services