Request ID: FOI-2704-2122 Date published: 08 March 2022
You asked
Follow-up to FOI-2011-2122: Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thanks for your reply on 15/12/2021. I kindly request, some specific clarification as information on HR records have some inconsistencies.
HR holds records, That, in December 2019 HR was using Area Managers stations.
Because they were 'just available' and it was consistent with interview rules as of 5th December 2019. It is only relatively recently ( from time not specified) that HR are using only TOMs and TMs for Train Operator Interviews .
I need further clarification as below:
1. As per your records : What occasions , London Underground Ltd ever used Area Manager station side on Train Operator Interview Panel in place of technically qualified TM or TOMs before or during December 2019 ?
2.
3.
4.
5. As per HR, non-technical AM Stations and Technically qualified TM or TOM were both considered competent to assess, Train Ops technical side questions as on 5th December 2019. Then why now , only TM or TOMs not AM stations are being used recently after 5th December 2019 as stated by HR ?
3.
4. Just because of availability, an Area Manager station side not technically qualified to assess any safety and fault questions , assessed a TO candidate on 5th December 2019, against the established procedure and committed irregularity.
5. As per the Equality Act 2010 Sec39 (2c) read with (4b) Is it not in-equality and disadvantages to that candidate? In comparison to any unnamed comparator candidates interviewed by technically qualified assessor like TM or TOM?
4. If that major procedural aberration happened in any case , What corrective measure , London Underground Ltd takes for any injustice happened to affected candidate interviewed by AM Stations instead of TM or TOM , as in above stated ?
5.
6. Who is designated person to contact and their mail ID , for any remedies by affected candidate? Within what time limits the remedy can be expected by candidate?
I hope my questions are straight forward , kindly provide clarification at your earliest, thanking you.
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-2704-2122
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 18th February 2022.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“As per your records : What occasions , London Underground Ltd ever used Area Manager station side on Train Operator Interview Panel in place of technically qualified TM or TOMs before or during December 2019 ?
As per HR, non-technical AM Stations and Technically qualified TM or TOM were both considered competent to assess, Train Ops technical side questions as on 5th December 2019. Then why now , only TM or TOMs not AM stations are being used recently after 5th December 2019 as stated by HR ?
Just because of availability, an Area Manager station side not technically qualified to assess any safety and fault questions , assessed a TO candidate on 5th December 2019, against the established procedure and committed irregularity.
As per the Equality Act 2010 Sec39 (2c) read with (4b) Is it not in-equality and disadvantages to that candidate? In comparison to any unnamed comparator candidates interviewed by technically qualified assessor like TM or TOM?
If that major procedural aberration happened in any case , What corrective measure , London Underground Ltd takes for any injustice happened to affected candidate interviewed by AM Stations instead of TM or TOM , as in above stated ?
Who is designated person to contact and their mail ID , for any remedies by affected candidate? Within what time limits the remedy can be expected by candidate?
Please note that the FOI Act relates to requests for recorded information only. It does not cover requests for explanation or opinion. Not all of your questions above ask for recorded information, and it is difficult to fully understand exactly what information it is you are requesting. However, please note also that under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act TfL is not obliged to provide information if it would cost more than £450 to determine if that information is held, and to then locate, retrieve or extract that information from elsewhere. This is calculated at a rate of £25 per hour, equivalent to 18 hours work. The costs limit applies in relation to your request given the wording of your first question alone, in which you ask:
“What occasions , London Underground Ltd ever used Area Manager station side on Train Operator Interview Panel in place of technically qualified TM or TOMs before or during December 2019 ?”
The request for this information to be provided “before” December 2019 - with no end date specified - means that the request relates to the entire history of London Underground Ltd prior to December 2019, and to every Train Operator interview panel in that time. It is not possible to provide this information within the 18 hour costs limit as it would involve sourcing and checking the composition of every such interview panel as far back as records begin.
Given that your request obviously relates to an internal matter I would suggest that your best route of reaching a satisfactory resolution would be to progress it via your management and / or HR. If you do wish to submit a refined FOI request - narrowing its scope to bring it within the costs limit - then please be explicit as to what exact recorded information you are after, noting the comments above that we would be unable to assist with requests for explanation.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
