Thank you for your response of 8 January regarding my previous request on the above. Disappointing as your response was, following your advice's I now attach a more restricted FOI to see if this information is less costly to provide. I appreciate this will be treated as a separate request but ask that it be read in conjunction with my previous ones to save any repetition here of where request has come from. 1) What lessons, if any, have been learned from the cases detailed in 2(b) below. (I do not need or want a detailed report merely, the lesson(s) learnt. I am happy to accept these overall or by case, whatever is easier). As I have reduced the paper cases to be looked at to SEVEN I do NOT see why the lessons learnt can not by identified. I think any reasonable person would consider this information as record-able and easily referred to. You must record why changes are made to procedures, surely? 2) The worse case is regarding Mr O'Sullivan who sadly died during proceedings so your settlement of £220,000 plus was made to his legal representatives. His claim, as a long term employee, was that he was being discriminated against due to his disability, was not offered relevant or helpful reasonable adjustments or had any discussion on these. This is a legal right & should be the first thing discussed. Hence, please advise if: a) All relevant ABSENCE procedures have been amended so disability discrimination is considered first. b) Assuming a disability exists the relevant procedures in (a) above state reasonable adjustments need to be discussed with the staff member. c) Assuming all the above has been done correctly & reasonable adjustments can't be done, an offer of alternative employment is offered via a prescribed procedure. I do not think the above is an unreasonable request as presumably such obvious lessons have been learnt & implemented. Although, I have used Mr O'Sullivan's case as an exemplar, it is not unique from the judgements I have seen in full ie Messrs El-Bakali; Mukadam; Dawes; Matthews & Vouvo & Ms Felix. Hence, to show further what lessons have been learnt please advise the following as at date of receipt or more suitable date (eg annual returns) : 3) Confirm how many staff have reasonable adjustments in place? As a report from SAP it should be easy to find such numbers, I see no possible cost prohibition ie there is no need to refer to paper records as the field should be specified on SAP. 4) You should be able to include what the reasonable adjustments in place are, please provide these. As in (3) above searching paper records should NOT need to be referred to if SAP has been fully utilised. I assume full utilisation is in place after some 12 years of use. IF cost prohibitive do not provide. 5) How many staff have a recognised Disability? Again as per (3) & (4) above available from SAP. 6) What disabilities have reasonable adjustments in place, please advise what these are & numbers involved. As per (3)-(5) above this should be available under SAP. IF cost prohibitive please confirm that they are already included in the date produced from (3) & (4) above. For clarification: A) I do not wish or need to know anything about any individual. B) The cases named are the known exemplars, printing of other judgements accepted. C) I am only interested in total numbers which should allow anonymity to be kept even if number(s) are one. D) Totals for whole combine is fine. IF cost implications still exist only provide answers , including for the ABSENCE procedures, for LUL ONLY which is the biggest part of the combine. E) If I can reduce the amount of work necessary yet get the majority of what I am seeking please advise me of same.

---

Our ref: FOI-2943-1617

Thank you for your emails received on 15 January 2018 asking for information about 232 employment tribunal cases.

Your request has been processed in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

As stated in our previous response, unfortunately to provide you with the further information you have requested, would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 set by the Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

Under section 12 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to comply with a request if we estimate that the cost of determining whether we hold the information, locating and retrieving it and extracting it from other information would exceed the appropriate limit. This is calculated at £25 per hour for every hour spent on the activities described.

We have estimated that it would exceed the cost limit to provide a response to your current request (FOI-2943-1718) as to obtain the information you are seeking would require a member of staff to manually review each one of the 232 individual files to locate, extract and compile the data and these files can be voluminous and complex in nature.

We appreciate that this is a narrowed request from a previous cost limit exemption and you will be disappointed that we are unable to assist further with the above request as it is currently framed. However to assist us in being able to provide you with some of the information you are seeking, we advise that you focus your request further to the specific information that is most important to you at this initial stage.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Melissa Nichols

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---