Grievance policy (FOI ref: 1386A/24)

Request

I would like to request your grievance policy.

Response

We can confirm that this information is held by West Midlands Police and in line with your request, I have attached a copy of the ‘Grievance Policy’ (Dispute resolution v1.0.pdf). However, while we are disclosing the majority of the policy, we are withholding a small amount of detail by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 40(2) - Personal information (Signature: page 15)

Section 31(1)(a) - Law enforcement (Email address: pages 3, 7, and 12)

Section 43(2) - Commercial interests (EAP telephone helpline number: pages 7, and 14)

Details of these exemptions and explanatory notes can be found on the College of Policing website at the following link: Freedom of information | College of Policing

Section 40(2) allows for personal data to be withheld where release would breach the third party’s data protection rights. A person's handwritten signature constitutes personal data, and it would be unfair to release this information where any person could be identified from the data and in this case the right to privacy outweighs any public interest in release.

In line with Section 31 and Section 43 above, I am required to complete a Prejudice/Public Interest Test on disclosure. Please find these as follows:

Section 31(1)(a) - Law enforcement

Harm

The dispute resolution policy applies to all West Midlands Police officers, special constables, and police staff and is designed to support them with concerns, problems or complaints that they may wish to raise in order to seek some form of resolution.

Releasing the email address of the Human Resource (HR) Advisory team into the public domain would increase the risk of phishing, cyber-attacks, or other malicious activities, potentially compromising our internal systems and personnel.

Section 31 - Public Interest Test

S31 - Arguments in favour of disclosure

Transparency and accountability: Disclosure would enhance transparency, allowing the public to fully see how grievance processes are managed within the police force.

Public engagement: Although the policy is for internal use, sharing unredacted details could demonstrate openness regarding staff welfare and grievance management.

S31 - Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

Cybersecurity risks: Revealing the email address could expose the force to cyber-attacks or phishing, which would compromise sensitive internal operations.

Crime prevention: A data breach or disruption to HR functions would negatively impact the force’s ability to effectively manage personnel matters.

Internal use of the policy: As the policy is for internal use, the need for public disclosure of specific operational details, like email addresses, is limited.

S31 - Balance test

For a public interest test, it is necessary to carry out a balancing exercise to decide whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Whilst I recognise the importance of transparency, in this case, it is my considered opinion that the risk of cyber-attacks and disruption to internal operations outweighs the benefits of full disclosure. The public interest therefore in protecting the integrity and security of our systems justifies maintaining the exemption and withholding the email address under Section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA.

Section 43(2) – Commercial interests

Harm

The telephone number of the employee assistance programme (EAP) helpline connects police employees directly to confidential assistance provided by an external service provider. Disclosing the helpline telephone number of our EAP provider could lead to misuse by non-unauthorised individuals, overwhelming the service with unsolicited calls and reducing its availability to police staff who rely on it for confidential support.

Additionally, the service provider may suffer reputational damage and operational disruptions as a result of improper use of their contact line potentially impacting their ability to provide effective assistance. The confidentiality and integrity of the service could also be compromised if access were widened beyond its intended audience.

Section 43 - Public Interest Test

S43 - Arguments in favour of disclosure

Transparency and openness: Full disclosure would provide greater transparency about the services available to police employees, potentially enhancing public confidence in the support mechanisms available to officers and staff.

Public interest in welfare services: There is a general public interest in understanding the resources provided to ensure the wellbeing of police personnel, including access to mental health and support services.

S43 - Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

Commercial sensitivity: Disclosure of the telephone number of our EAP helpline could harm the commercial interests of the external service provider by potentially exposing them to misuse or unsolicited contact outside the intended user group. This could negatively impact the service’s operations and their ability to provide efficient, confidential support to WMP officers and staff.

Disruption of services: Public release of the helpline number might result in misuse, overwhelming the service with calls from non-authorised users, which would reduce its availability for the police employees who genuinely need it.

Internal nature of the service: The EAP telephone helpline number is intended for use by WMP employees. As such, public access to this number does not serve a wider public interest, and withholding it ensures that the service is protected for its intended users.

S43 - Balance test

Whilst transparency is important, the potential harm to the service provider’s commercial interests and the risk of disrupting access to a critical support service for police personnel outweigh the benefits of full disclosure. Allowing the EAP contact details to be widely accessed could negatively impact the effectiveness of the service, reducing its availability and potentially damaging its reputation and operational capability. As this service is crucial for providing confidential and tailored support to police staff, it is vital that the integrity and confidentiality of the service is maintained.

Therefore, after weighing these arguments, it is my opinion that withholding the telephone number under section 43(2) is in the public interest and the exemption is maintained. This decision protects both the service provides commercial interests and ensures continued access to essential support for police personnel.