University of Warwick
Incomplete, Original Response Refusal
-- Original Response (1 Dec 2014)
Note that Warwick originally refused this request for FY 2013 data
From: JJ Hermes
Sent: 8 February 2014 12:20
To: infocompliance@warwick.ac.uk
Subject: FOI request, Submission (ID: 137319713)
To whom it may concern:
I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act:
1. The names and titles of all University of Warwick staff making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2013.
2. The total emoluments for the past seven (7) years of all staff identified in the first request.
Digital copies of the information are completely acceptable in response to this request. I prefer contact via e-mail. Thank you for your response.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Infocompliance, Resource (infocompliance@warwick.ac.uk) wrote (FOI Request):
Dear Mr Hermes,
Thank you for your email dated 18 February 2014 requesting information about the University of Warwick. Your request is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please find below your original request and our response.
I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act:
1. The names and titles of all University of Warwick staff making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2013.
2. The total emoluments for the past seven (7) years of all staff identified in the first request.
The University considers that disclosing the requested information amounts to disclosure of "personal data" as defined by Data Protection Act 1998 s 1(1) (i.e. information from which a living individual can be identified).
Specific remuneration details are usually regarded as confidential. Staff therefore have a reasonable expectation that specific details relating to their remuneration will not be put into the public domain. That expectation is further reinforced by the publication requirements of the University's regulator, the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE). HEFCE requires the remuneration of higher-paid staff in bands of £10,000 to be reported in respect of those staff who earn £100,000 or more together with details of compensation for loss of office paid to that cohort. With the exception of the Vice-Chancellor, individuals are not identified and individuals' remuneration packages are not required to be reported.
Disclosure in response to a FOIA request is disclosure to the public at large. There is no presumption in favour of disclosure of personal data under the Freedom of Information Act and the information sought is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2)& (3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This exemption allows public authorities to refuse to disclose third party personal data where to do so would be in breach of any of the principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Disclosure of this information would be in breach of the first principle which states that personal data must be processed fairly, lawfully and justified by reference to one of the conditions provided in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act. Fairness relates to the reasonable expectation of privacy of the individuals concerned. In the circumstances, the University considers that it would not be fair to disclose the requested information in this instance. Schedule 2 paragraph 6 of the Act requires disclosure where it is necessary in the public interest, except where the disclosure is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the individual. In other words, there must be a pressing social need for the disclosure. In addition, the interference with the individuals' privacy (i.e. the disclosure) must be proportionate and therefore it must be the least intrusive means of fulfilling that pressing social need.
We are not aware of any such pressing social need, such as any credible allegation of impropriety, misuse of public funds or corruption that would justify disclosing the salary details of individual members of staff.
The University recognises that there is a legitimate public interest in providing information about the allocation of public funds across the University including the amount paid to employees, together with the use of public funds generally. Such public-interest requirements are however already fulfilled by means of the University's financial reporting requirements which can be found at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/finance/corporate_information/accounts/.
Detailed information about salary scales for all staff can be found via the University's Publication Scheme, specifically the section on human resources (see http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/humanresources/payroll/salscalescurrent/).
In all the circumstances of the case therefore, disclosure of the requested information would be disproportionate and hence unjustified. It would be a breach of the Data Protection Act (principle 1).
If you are unhappy with the way in which your request has been handled by the University of Warwick, you can request an internal review and in the first instance you are advised to follow the procedure outlined here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/legalservices/freedomofinformation/foi/publicguidelines/
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
If you are unhappy with the way in which your request has been handled by the University of Warwick, you can request an internal review and in the first instance you are advised to follow the procedure outlined here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/legalservices/freedomofinformation/foi/publicguidelines/
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Horsburgh
Jo Horsburgh | Deputy Registrar
University House | University of Warwick | Coventry | CV4 8UW
|
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:42 PM, JJ Hermes wrote (Re: FOI Request):
Hi Jo,
I write to respectfully dispute a withholding of information requested under a Freedom of Information Act of 2000 request dated 18 February 2014, requesting information about the University of Warwick. In my original request, I requested the following information:
1. The names and titles of all University of Warwick staff making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2013.
2. The total emoluments for the past seven (7) years of all staff identified in the first request.
The University declined this request, replying that "disclosing the
requested information amounts to disclosure of 'personal data' as
defined by Data Protection Act 1998 s 1(1) (i.e. information from which
a living individual can be identified). Specific remuneration details
are usually regarded as confidential. Staff therefore have a reasonable
expectation that specific details relating to their remuneration will
not be put into the public domain. ... With the exception of the
Vice-Chancellor, individuals are not identified and individuals'
remuneration packages are not required to be reported."
The response continued: "Disclosure in response to a FOIA request is
disclosure to the public at large. There is no presumption in favour of
disclosure of personal data under the Freedom of Information Act and the
information sought is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2)&
(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This exemption allows
public authorities to refuse to disclose third party personal data where
to do so would be in breach of any of the principles set out in the Data
Protection Act 1998. Disclosure of this information would be in breach
of the first principle which states that personal data must be processed
fairly, lawfully and justified by reference to one of the conditions
provided in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act. Fairness relates to
the reasonable expectation of privacy of the individuals concerned. In
the circumstances, the University considers that it would not be fair to
disclose the requested information in this instance. Schedule 2
paragraph 6 of the Act requires disclosure where it is necessary in the
public interest, except where the disclosure is unwarranted in any
particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the individual. In other words, there must be a
pressing social need for the disclosure. In addition, the interference
with the individuals' privacy (i.e. the disclosure) must be
proportionate and therefore it must be the least intrusive means of
fulfilling that pressing social need. We are not aware of any such
pressing social need, such as any credible allegation of impropriety,
misuse of public funds or corruption that would justify disclosing the
salary details of individual members of staff."
I am unhappy with the way in which this request has been handled by the
University of Warwick, and respectfully disagree with this
nondisclosure. I believe this data is well within the public interest,
and there is wide precedent across publicly funded entities in the UK of
regularly disclosing this type of information. I therefore request an
internal review of this request.
The request holds significant public interest, given that the University
of Warwick is a publicly funded institution of higher education that
derives a significant portion of funding from public taxation. The
public has a right to understand why, in only the past year (from year
end 31 July 2012 to 31 July 2013), the number of staff earning
emoluments in excess of £150,000 has substantially risen, increasing
from 18 to 29. In the year ending 31 July 2008 there were just 8 staff
members earning more than £150,000 annually.
The assertion that a credible allegation of impropriety or corruption is
required for disclosure of salaries of senior staff making more than
£150,000 in annual emoluments fails to acknowledge that openness is, in
itself, something in the public interest in promoting accountability and
transparency in the spending of public money. As suggested by the
Information Commissioner's Office, "It is reasonable to expect that a
public authority would disclose more information relating to senior
employees than more junior ones. Senior employees should expect their
posts to carry a greater level of accountability." Surely employees
earning more than £150,000 annually can be considered senior employees,
since this salary is more than twice the highest grade on the human
resources salary scale (spinal point 51: £57,031 annually).
Public disclosure of this information also comprises a reasonable
request. For example, the Accounts and Audit (Amendment no 2)
Regulations of 2009 require local authorities to publish the actual
salaries, allowances, bonuses, compensation and employer's pension
contributions paid to each employee who earned over £50,000, and in
addition to publish the names of those staff who earned over £150,000.
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3322/made). It may not be
necessary to disclose the exact salary of the employees earning more
than £150,000 annually in emoluments, but rather to quote that amount in
some range, such as in bands of £5,000 (e.g., £160,000 to £164,999).
I appreciate your attention, and look forward to hearing back from your
office with a full fulfillment of this original FOI request.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Infocompliance, Resource (infocompliance@warwick.ac.uk) wrote (FOI Internal Review):
Dear Dr Hermes,
Thank you for your email dated 24 March 2014 requesting a review of the handling of your Freedom of Information request. I have considered your request for a review in accordance with the University's procedures and my conclusions are outlined below. In particular, you consider that there is a significant public interest in disclosing the identities, including job titles, of staff who earned more than £150,000 in the last financial year, together with the total emoluments paid to all of those individual members of staff in the past seven years. You also indicate that there is a precedent for publicly-funded organisations disclosing specific salaries of senior staff.
Public interest
The initial response was correct in its application of the exemption for personal data and in its analysis that disclosing the requested information would create a conflict of rights i.e. the reasonable expectation of privacy of the individuals concerned, as provided by the Data Protection Act, and the public interest in transparency. The latter does not extinguish the former and the application of the Data Protection Act requires the University to be satisfied that there is an overriding public interest in the particular circumstances warranting disclosure. If there is no overriding public interest, then disclosure amounts to a breach of the Data Protection Act and the information is absolutely exempt from disclosure.
It is accepted that there is a legitimate public interest in transparency regarding the use of public money by universities and by the University of Warwick in particular. On the other hand, staff also have a reasonable expectation that their salaries will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to the public at large.
HEFCE, the University's primary regulator, has issued clear guidelines on the requirements for disclosing salary details in the annual accounts, to which reference was made in the initial response. It requires that the specific salary details of the Vice-Chancellor are disclosed. Therefore, while the most senior, public-facing, policy-making member of staff has a diminished expectation of privacy with regard to his specific salary, other members of staff reasonably expect that salary details be reported anonymously in bands of £10,000. The model publication scheme for higher education institutions issued by the Information Commissioner also ensures routine publication of anonymous, salary bands.
Exceptional circumstances, such as impropriety, would be required therefore to warrant disclosure of individuals' salaries in breach of privacy. I am not satisfied that there is a case for the existence of such circumstances. If your concern is to understand why there is an apparent increase in salaries paid at or above £150,000, then there is a significant amount of information already in the public domain which analyses higher education and the increasing competition for income-generating world-class academic staff to explain upward trend in salaries, without the need to identify particular individuals' salaries, with the attendant distress that such disclosure is likely to cause. In addition, the University has recently published information presented at the meeting of the Assembly held on 11 February 2014: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/committees/assembly/minutes/warwick_staff_meeting_february_2014.pdf.
Precedent in the public sector
I have also taken into consideration your view that there is a precedent in the public sector for disclosing exact salary details of identified staff and you refer to legislation making provision accordingly (which is now repealed and replaced by 2011 regulations). I am not aware of any such precedent in higher education that would influence staff expectations of privacy. While Parliament has made express provision for the disclosure of specific salaries in local government, it has not done so in respect of higher education and hence the University is required to consider your request in accordance with the Data Protection Act by balancing privacy with any overriding public interest in disclosure. For the reasons outlined above and in the initial response to your request, I am satisfied that the public interest in understanding increased spending on salaries is fulfilled by the information already published and a breach of privacy is not warranted in the circumstances.
Aggregate information
While I consider that it was appropriate to withhold details of individual staff salaries for the reasons outlined above, the University may be able to provide aggregate information relating to the second part of your request. However, I consider that there are a number of possible interpretations of your request. Therefore I would be grateful if you would confirm if you would like to receive the total amount paid to those members of staff receiving emoluments in excess of £150,000 at 31 July 2013 for the past seven years, noting that a number of individuals will have not been employed by the University for the complete period or employed in various roles, or the total amount paid to members of staff receiving emoluments in excess of £150,000 at 31 July for each of the past seven years, noting that the number of such individuals will vary by year, as set out in the Statutory Accounts.
Conclusion
My conclusion is that your request was handled appropriately and in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office
The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Sloan
Ken Sloan | Registrar and Chief Operating Officer
University House | University of Warwick | Coventry | CV4 8UW
|
|
From: JJ Hermes
Sent: 20 October 2014 12:22
To: infocompliance@warwick.ac.uk
Subject: FOI request
To whom it may concern,
I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act:
1. The names and titles of all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. These individuals are considered "higher-paid staff" by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE).
2. Please identify the number of individuals identified in the first request who are (a) tenured faculty, (b) clinical staff, or (c) serve in a non-classroom capacity, such as administrative staff.
3. The total emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff identified in the first request.
There is wide precedent across publicly funded entities in the UK of regularly disclosing this type of information. The Accounts and Audit (Amendment no 2) Regulations of 2009 require local authorities to publish the actual salaries, allowances, bonuses, compensation and employer's pension contributions paid to each employee who earned over £50,000, and in addition to publish the names of those staff who earned over £150,000 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3322/made). It is not necessary to disclose the exact salary of the employees earning more than £150,000, but rather to quote that amount in bands of £10,000, as directed by the HEFCE.
The request holds significant public interest, given that the university is a publicly funded institution of higher education that derives a significant portion of funding from public taxation. In addition, openness is, in itself, something in the public interest in promoting accountability and transparency in the spending of public money. As suggested by the Information Commissioner's Office, "It is reasonable to expect that a
public authority would disclose more information relating to senior employees than more junior ones. Senior employees should expect their posts to carry a greater level of accountability." Employees earning more than £150,000 annually can be considered senior employees, since this compensation is more than twice the highest grade on the human resources salary scale.
I look forward to hearing back from you regarding this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up questions. I would prefer all correspondence be sent digitally through this e-mail address, including the response to this request. Thank you for your time in addressing this query.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:18 PM, JJ Hermes wrote (Re: FOI request):
To whom it may concern,
On 20 Oct 2014, I submitted a request for information from the University under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act regarding emoluments for senior members of staff for the year ended 31 July 2014.
Your response should have been provided by 17 Nov 2014, as 20 business days have now passed since my initial request. Please let me know when you will be able to reply to my FOI request.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM, JJ Hermes wrote (Re: FOI request):
To whom it may concern,
On 20 Oct 2014, I submitted a request for information from the University under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act regarding emoluments for senior members of staff for the year ended 31 July 2014.
Your response should have been provided by 17 Nov 2014, 20 business days subsequent to my initial request. I inquired about the state of my request on 18 Nov 2014, but recieved no response from your office.
If I do not hear from you by next Tuesday, 2 Dec 2014, I will report a formal concern to the Information Commissioner's Office for failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.
I look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you for your assistance in completing this request.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Infocompliance, Resource (infocompliance@warwick.ac.uk) wrote (Re: FOI Request):
Dear Mr Hermes,
Thank you for your email dated 20th October 2014 requesting information about the University of Warwick. Your request is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please find below your original request and our response.
1. The names and titles of all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. These individuals are considered "higher-paid staff" by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE).
2. Please identify the number of individuals identified in the first request who are (a) tenured faculty, (b) clinical staff, or (c) serve in a non-classroom capacity, such as administrative staff.
3. The total emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff identified in the first request.
Please find our response below:
You have sought access under the Freedom of Information Act to specific salary-related information. It is our view that such information remains exempt from FOI legislation as it is commercially sensitive and that further, such disclosure would be a breach of the reasonable expectations of the staff in question and a breach of the data protection principles.
Therefore we are unable to provide any further information in support of your request beyond that already published on page 32 of the University's statutory accounts which is available here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/finance/resources/accounts/accounts1213.pdf
If you are unhappy with the way in which your request has been handled by the University of Warwick, you can request an internal review and in the first instance you are advised to follow the procedure outlined here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/legalservices/freedomofinformation/foi/publicguidelines/
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Horsburgh
Jo Horsburgh | Deputy Registrar
University House | University of Warwick | Coventry | CV4 8UW
|
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:07 AM, JJ Hermes wrote (Re: FOI Request):
Dear Jo,
I write to respectfully dispute your response to my 20 Oct 2014 FOI request for information about senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. As a reminder, that request comprised three parts:
1. The names and titles of all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. These individuals are considered "higher-paid staff" by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE).
2. Please identify the number of individuals identified in the first request who are (a) tenured faculty, (b) clinical staff, or (c) serve in a non-classroom capacity, such as administrative staff.
3. The total emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff identified in the first request.
I understand from your 1 Dec 2014 response that the University reserves the right to withhold public disclosure of individual staff and their salaries as refusal Notice 3, which was part (1) of this request. However, the University has completely ignored parts (2) and (3) of this request. Thus, I request the University respond to this original request in full:
Please identify all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. Please categorize them as one of the following, as per part (2) of this request: (a) academic staff, (b) clinical staff, or (c) senior management. Then, please provide the annual emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff making more than £150,000 in total emoluments identified in the first part of this request. Please identify by name and title all members of the University's senior administrative team and management (e.g., staff in the Vice-Chancellor's Office such as pro-vice-chancellors, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, directors of institutes, etc.).
I have submitted this identical request to each of the 24 members of the Russell Group of universities, and a response from the University of Exeter (attached) exemplifies what I consider a complete fulfillment of my request. Note that it protects the personal data of all senior staff with the exception of the senior management team, and provides salary information in bands of £10,000 annually for the past five years. This information is not accessible from the University by any other means than a FOI request, so your Refusal Notices 1 and 2 are not relevant to my request.
Moreover, a First-Tier Tribunal has ruled in a very similar case that universities must disclose the names/titles and salaries of all members of the PSS (Professional Services staff; ie, the senior management team) making more than £100,000 in total emoluments. The Information Commissioner's Office found in case FS50513117 dated 17 Feb 2014 that King's College London must release the names/titles and salaries of *all* staff making more than £100,000 in total emoluments (http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50513117.pdf). However, the First-Tier Tribunal ruled on 2 Oct 2014 in Case No. EA/2014/0054, an appeal from King's College, that only the names and salaries of members of the PSS (Professional Services staff; ie, the senior management team) making more than £100,000 in total emoluments are subject to disclosure (http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1390/Kings%20College%20London%20EA.2014.0054%20(30.09.14).pdf).
I appreciate your response in full to this request under the Freedom of Information Act of 2000. I look forward to hearing back from you regarding this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up questions. I would prefer all correspondence be sent digitally through this e-mail address, including the response to this request. Thank you for your time in addressing this query.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Infocompliance, Resource (infocompliance@warwick.ac.uk) wrote (FOI - Internal review response):
Dear Mr Hermes,
Thank you for your email dated 3rd December 2014. Your email was interpreted as a request for an Internal Review into the way in which the University has responded to your recent Freedom of Information request. I write to confirm that in accordance with our procedures, a review has been carried out.
Firstly, the university would like to explain that the exemptions (FOIA s43 (2) and s40 (2)) cited and relied on in our response to withhold the requested information applied to parts two and three of your request, as well as part one. Apologies for any confusion caused by our response, which is expanded upon below.
Part two of your original FOI request:
Please find your original request below and our response.
2. Please identify the number of individuals identified in the first request who are (a) tenured faculty, (b) clinical staff, or (c) serve in a non-classroom capacity, such as administrative staff.
Whilst the University has justified reasons to rely upon exemptions S.43 (2) and S.40 (2) for all three parts of your request, having formally reviewed the response issued to you on 1st December 2014, and upon publication of our statement of accounts for the academic year 2013/14 we can now provide you with the information you are seeking in relation to part two of your original FOI request as this information may now be ascertained from that already within the public domain.
Page 33 of the University's financial reporting requirements which can be found at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/finance/resources/accounts/statement_of_accounts_2014.pdf
provides a breakdown of salary information in bands of £10,000. From this table you can see that the total number of staff members earning more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year 2013/14 is 43.
Further to the information provided in the link above, we can also provide you with the following breakdown of numbers with regards to part two of your request, the number of individuals earning more than £150,000 for the year ending 31st July 2014 who are:
(a) tenured faculty - 23
(b) Clinical Staff - 18
(c) Serve in a non-classroom capacity, such as administrative staff - 2
Please note that for the specifics of this request we have interpreted 'tenured faculty' to mean any member of staff whose job is academic in nature and we have further interpreted 'Clinical Staff' to mean any of those academic staff who are working within the Warwick Medical School.
Part one and three of your original FOI request:
Please find your original request below and our response.
1. The names and titles of all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. These individuals are considered "higher-paid staff" by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE).
3. The total emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff identified in the first request.
You have invoked the recent decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) in the case of King's College to support the case for disclosure of the requested information in respect of non-academic members of the executive team earning £150,000 (part one of your request). It is our understanding, however, that the decision of the FTT is under appeal and that the salary details of the relevant executive staff have not to date been disclosed. It is our view that such information in the context of Warwick University is commercially sensitive and, further, disclosure would breach the reasonable expectations of the staff in question.
Prejudice to commercial interests (FOIA s43(2))
The University competes in a global higher education market and to be successful it must attract the brightest and the best candidates to its senior non-academic management positions. In this global market place there is intense competition for talented senior leaders with appropriate experience and expertise. The success of the University depends on its ability to recruit those individuals with significant management skills who can combine those skills with HE acumen. In the circumstances, disclosure could prejudice the University's commercial interests by increasing recruitment costs, inflating salaries, making retention more difficult and would be likely to create unwanted tension between staff as a result of salary differentials.
Disclosing salaries of higher-paid academic staff would also prejudice the University's commercial interests, for similar reasons to those adduced above. The pool of specialised, internationally leading academic staff is relatively small in each discipline both within the UK and world-wide. As a consequence, recruiting staff who can fulfil the University's research strategy and who will attract the most able undergraduate and post-graduate students, is a demanding challenge. Salary is a significant factor in determining the University's ability to negotiate in the recruitment exercise to attract researchers and teachers of a calibre commensurate with the University's world rankings.
The job market for internationally excellent academic staff is intensely competitive, with UK and overseas institutions regularly seeking to recruit staff from one another to enhance their research performance. Salary information provides a very valuable tool for competitor institutions in achieving that goal. If such salary details were to be made available to the public at large, this would facilitate the recruitment efforts of our competitors both in the UK and overseas resulting in a brain drain from the institution and significant pay inflation to retain key staff.
Revealing salaries paid over the last five years would reveal trends in the University's remuneration practices and for that reason, as well as those adduced above, disclosure would be likely to prejudice the University's commercial interests.
The University has considered the public interest. It recognises that there is a legitimate public interest in providing information about the allocation of public funds across the University including the amount paid to employees, together with the use of public funds generally. The public-interest requirements are however already fulfilled by means of the University's financial reporting requirements which can be found at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/finance/resources/accounts/statement_of_accounts_2014.pdf
Detailed information about salary scales for all staff can be found via the University's Publication Scheme, specifically the section on human resources (see http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/humanresources/payroll/salscalescurrent/).
In all the circumstances of the case, given the information already in the public domain, the balance of public interest lies in favour of the University maintaining its competitive edge in recruiting staff at any level but particularly its senior managers and academics and hence in maintaining the exemption.
Breach of the first principle of data protection (FOIA s40(2))
Specific remuneration details are usually regarded as confidential. Staff therefore have a reasonable expectation that specific details relating to their remuneration will not be put into the public domain. That expectation is further reinforced by the publication requirements of the University's regulator, HEFCE, which requires the remuneration of higher-paid staff in bands of £10,000 to be reported in respect of those staff who earn £100,000 or more together with details of compensation for loss of office paid to that cohort. With the exception of the Vice-Chancellor, individuals are not identified and individuals' remuneration packages are not required to be reported. In the circumstances, the University considers that it would not be fair to disclose the requested information in this instance and to do so would breach the first principle of data protection. The information requested in requests one and three is therefore absolutely exempt from disclosure.
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Glover
Academic Registrar
|
|