Job evaluation consultancies (FOI)

Request

A letter from the Chief Operating Office dated 10 December 2018 and signed by Jonathan Donovan states: "we asked three different job evaluation consultancies to evaluate a range of Social Work roles."

I wish to know:

A

The names of those agencies

B

Which social work roles were evaluated by each agency

C

Please also provide copies of any correspondence between Mark Rogers and Susan Devlin with the key words “Team Managers Children's Social Work – Uplift / Grading / Regrading / Hay and the job evaluation agencies “Korn Ferry” “MPA Consulting” “[Name redacted]”.

Response

A to C

A search was performed using the Government of Jersey’s email archiving system for emails sent or received by the two individuals named in the request. The search has been performed using the keywords within the above clarification.

The keyword ‘grading’ resulted in 900 pages of emails for the two individuals. It was estimated that to review all emails for relevancy, to extract all duplicates and to process these emails would exceed the 12.5 working hour limit of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 and Regulations. This keyword search, therefore, was not processed further.

Attached are relevant emails retrieved from the Government of Jersey’s email archiving system that fall within the above parameters. Emails have been removed where exemptions apply (details below). Redactions have also been applied to the provided emails accordingly.

SD Uplift (Redacted)

SD Hay (Redacted)

MR Uplift (Redacted)

MR Hay (Redacted)

Articles applied

Article 25 Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

Article 25 is an absolute exemption and has been applied to personal data, including the redaction of details of staff below a certain civil servant grade who therefore have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Article 25 has also been applied to a number of the emails which deal with the grievance of a small number of individuals. These individuals have entered into correspondence with the Government of Jersey in relation to a personal employment issue.

In assessing this information the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) reviewed the emails in accordance with the principles of Article 8 (1) (a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 (as referenced by Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (the FOI Law)). The SPA considered that the details of the staff grievance and the associated factors were personal information and that:

• the staff members had an expectation of privacy, though it is acknowledged that email correspondence with the SPA is subject to the FOI Law

• the information is fundamentally of a sensitive nature as it details grades and terms of employment

• whilst the information could be redacted to remove the names and certain details of the individuals, this is a small island and the number of possible relevant individuals is very small, therefore identification is likely

• the public may have a limited interest in the granular detail of the case, but this is outweighed by the right to privacy of the affected individuals

Article 31 Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer

Information is qualified exempt information if it is or relates to the provision of advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Article 32 Legal professional privilege

Information is qualified exempt information if it is information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Public Interest Test

The SPA is withholding the release of certain emails under Articles 31 and 32. Articles 31 and 32 are qualified exemptions, which means that a public interest test is required to be undertaken by the SPA. It is therefore necessary for the SPA to examine the circumstances of the case. The underlying purpose of the confidentiality inherent within Article 31 and 32 is to protect fully informed decision making by allowing government to seek legal advice in private, without fear of any adverse inferences being drawn from the content of the advice. It ensures that government is neither discouraged from seeking advice in appropriate cases, nor pressured to seek advice in inappropriate cases.

Following assessment the SPA has to decide whether, on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Although there is a need for transparency and accountability by public authorities, the public interest does not outweigh the SPA’s requirements to maintain legal professional and Law Officer privilege respectively.

Article 39 Employment

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice pay or conditions negotiations that are being held between a public authority and –

(a) an employee or prospective employee of the authority; or

(b) representatives of the employees of the authority.

Public Interest Test

The SPA is withholding the release of parts of this information as it believes that to release it could prejudice:

i) The ongoing dispute in relation to the grading of various roles within the Government of Jersey; and also

ii) Ongoing evaluations which take place as part of the day to day management of employment conditions within the Government of Jersey.

With regards ii), the SPA would be concerned that future evaluations may be affected due to the release of information as there could be a substantial chilling effect on willingness to discuss evaluations and to enter into negotiations if such discussions cannot be guaranteed privacy (at least whilst in the live stages of negotiation).

Article 39 is a qualified exemption, which means that a public interest test is required to be undertaken by the SPA. It is therefore necessary for the scheduled public authority to examine the circumstances of the case. Following assessment the SPA has to decide whether, on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Although there is a need for transparency, accountability, and good decision making by public authorities this information relates to ongoing and active negotiations between the Government of Jersey and a small group of their employees. It is the opinion of the SPA that the arguments in relation application of this exemption are currently very strong due to the real potential for prejudice of an ongoing case. However it is acknowledged that the strength of such arguments will be decreased when the case is concluded.

On balance, it is our view that the public interest does not outweigh the potential prejudice of release.

The SPA is therefore withholding this information as it believes that to release it at this particular stage would be likely to prejudice the negotiations which are currently taking place.