Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

Given that at the time of the application for access the selection body has not assessed the merits claimed by the participants in the selection process, access to the documentation accrediting these merits (or to the spreadsheet in which they are related) would not be justified, without prejudice to the fact that, once their assessment has been carried out, access can be recognised with regard to, if applicable, those participants who have finally been selected or who have obtained a better position in the job exchange with respect to the claimant.

The right to data protection would not prevent the claimant from accessing the requested public information that only contains aggregated data. Likewise, in view of the concurrent circumstances in the specific case, it would be justified to release pseudonymized information on the distribution of cases among the lawyers assigned to the TOAD, with an indication of the associated incidences, as well as on the invoices presented by these lawyers, for the period between 2018 and 2022. However, the information on the persons assisted by the TOAD lawyers that may be included would have to be omitted, in any case.

Data protection regulations would not prevent access to the statements of the practical and theoretical exams, along with the correction criteria, proposed in the selective process referred to in the petition, but as regards obtaining a copy of the exams in question, their submission in the specific case examined would only be possible after anonymisation of this information.

Data protection regulations would not allow the trade union delegate to access a copy of the payrolls of the work staff affected by the application for access. However, it is possible to communicate the information contained in payrolls in an aggregate way, so as to ensure that they are not identified.

With the information available, it can be concluded that the jobs of A17 officials who are not LITERate (heads of department) can be considered to be places of special trust, of special responsibility within the organisation or of high pay. Access to individualised information on the pay of public workers must, in principle, be limited to senior managers and staff as well as to staff who hold positions of special trust, of special responsibility within the organisation or high level in the hierarchy of the entity, of free designation, or who carry a high level of pay. With regard to other public workers, the public interest in controlling public activity with regard to the destination of resources could also be satisfied without sacrificing the privacy of the persons concerned in such a way that information must be provided aggregated by groups and levels of intervals. As regards the three-year period of these workers, it would be in line with data protection regulations to provide information grouped by categories or by groups and levels of intervals. It is generally not considered appropriate to data protection regulations to provide information relating to the description, chronologically speaking, of the administrative situation of an entire group of officials throughout their administrative career, whether they are management staff or special responsibility or whether it affects other groups of officials.

Prenent en consideració les circumstàncies que concorren en el cas particular, i d’acord amb l’anàlisi que s’ha dut a terme, des del punt de vista de la finalitat general de transparència no estaria justificat l’accés a la informació relativa a l’antiguitat, titulació, formació i nivell de català de les persones ocupants de determinats llocs de treball, més enllà de la informació relativa a la concurrència dels requisits mínims exigits per ocupar els dits llocs de treball, com ara, que la persona ocupant disposa dels coneixements de llengua catalana o la formació mínima exigida per al lloc de treball concret que ocupa, d’acord amb la relació de llocs de treball de la Diputació.

With regard to the request for access to information on the list of workers, from 1 January 2020 until the present, by years, indicating names and surnames, workplace and equipment where the activity is carried out, number of morning and afternoon days held in person and at a distance, and whether or not tickets have been paid in restaurants, it is justified only if this information is provided without identification by workplace and equipment where it performs its activity and replacing the name and surnames of workers with a code that does not allow them to be identified.

With regard to the list of people who have received productivity supplements in the last four years, as well as their amount, criteria and calculation requested, data protection regulations do not prevent access to this information from all employees of the County Council. As regards the list of people who have received the bonuses and/or other salary supplements in the last four years, access is only justified with regard to the workforce who hold high positions, management positions, trust, free appointment, special responsibility, or who involve high levels of pay. However, as far as the rest of the workforce is concerned, access is only justified if this information is provided without identifying by categories and replacing the name and surnames of working people with a code that does not allow them to be identified. With regard to information on the training of workers in the last four years, the personal data protection regulation does not prevent access. We must remember that the person representing the workers is subject to the duty of professional secrecy and secrecy.

The data protection regulations allow, in this case, the union delegate to have access to a copy of the decrees of the mayor's approval of the payroll of the staff of the City Council, prior to anonymization of the data of the public employees concerned and limiting their access, if applicable, to any other information that may appear in the said decrees that exceed the object of their claim, pursuant to the principle of minimization of the data (Article 5.1.c of the GDPR). However, it would be possible to provide the merely identifying information contained in the mayor's decrees relating to the mayor, in the terms that have been set out.

In view of the rules governing Equality Plans in companies, it can be said that the members of the Committee of Workers of the entity that are part of the negotiating Commission for the Equality Plan must be able to access information from the Tax Register, which must be in accordance with the terms of Article 28.2 of the ET, despite having professional categories with a small number of workers, while remaining those obliged to respect the confidentiality of this information.