Job related fitness test policy (JRFT)

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.021952

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am looking to access a copy of the job related fitness test policy (JRFT). I am working on a personal project to review the process and requirement including the rationale behind such a process. I am trying to obtain policies from different forces to identify nuances, inconsistencies and availability or tests throughout the forces.

Decision

I have disclosed the information policy to you. Please find the Met’s Job Related Fitness Test Policy enclosed with this notice. In disclosing this record to you, I have removed the names of the authors and contributors to this policy. A series of emboldened asterisks (i.e. **********) denote where exempt material has been removed. All redactions have been made in accordance with the personal data and law enforcement exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). This notice therefore serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information

Please note that the protective marking of this document has been struck through, as this policy, following redaction, is no longer protectively marked.

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

You have requested that the MPS disclose the Met’s Job Related Fitness Test Policy. This report contains the name of the authors and contributors to this policy. Having considered the release of this personal data, I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that:

a. The name of the authors and contributors to the Met’s Job Related Fitness Test were recorded to provide contact details in respect of this document and its content. This personal information was recorded for internal use only. I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied through releasing each employee’s name. Additionally it is of note that the redaction of this information does not detract from the quality of the record disclosed.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

I have claimed this exemption in that the release and publication of the contact details of the Met’s HR Contact Centre, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31(1)(a) is both qualified and prejudice based. I am accordingly required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. In addition to conducting a public interest test, I must also establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that would result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.

The release and publication of the telephone number of the Met’s HR Contact Centre, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person with this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with members of staff at the Met’s HR Contact Centre. This would tie up the resources of these staff members and cause disruption to the work of the MPS.

Having carefully considered this, I have found that that the public release and publication of the telephone number of the Met’s HR Contact Centre, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Given this and the fact that the removal of this information does not detract from the quality of the record being disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest. I have accordingly refused to release the information described above in response to your request for information.

Disclosure

Please refer to the documents below