Customer service complaints - St George's Tce post office
Ben Fairless made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Postal Corporation
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Australian Postal Corporation,
Can you please provide:
- a copy of any complaints recorded against staff currently working at Australian Post Office 66 St George's Tce, Perth
- the details of any investigations into those complaints
-the outcome provided to the complaintant.
Please process this request informally at first, then as a formal Freedom of Information request.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
We acknowledge receipt of your Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
Please be aware that information released under the FOI Act may later be
published in a disclosure log (subject to certain exceptions) within 10
days of a determination being made. You may wish to express a view on
this issue and to identify personal or business information that in your
view may be unreasonable to publish.
In accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act we will advise you of our
decision within 30 days of receipt of your request.
Australia Post is committed to providing our customers with excellent
service. If we can assist you in any way please telephone 13 13 18 or
visit our website.
The information contained in this email communication may be proprietary,
confidential or legally professionally privileged. It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You
should only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance
on or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so.
Australia Post does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity
of this email communication has been maintained nor that the communication
is free of errors, virus or interference.
If you are not the addressee or intended recipient please notify us by
replying direct to the sender and then destroy any electronic or paper
copy of this message. Any views expressed in this email communication are
taken to be those of the individual sender, except where the sender
specifically attributes those views to Australia Post and is authorised to
do so.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Good morning Mr Fairless,
I refer to email received by Australia Post on 8 September 2016 and advise that Australia Post does not provide information about its employees “informally”.
Should you wish to proceed to make an application under the Freedom of information Act 1982, we will require that you comply with the formal requirements of that Act. We refer you to section 15 of the FOI Act 1982.
Further, I advise that it is a policy of Australia Post to redact all personal information relating to employees other than senior executive staff when responding to FOI applications.
Accordingly should you wish to pursue this matter under the FOI Act 1982, I will not provide you with any names of contact details or information allowing the identification of any employee at Australia Post.
I await receipt of your formal FOI application.
Regards,
Anna Oliver
FOI Officer
Australia Post
[Australia Post request email]
Dear Anna,
Thank you for your email.
The initial communication with the agency on 8 September meets the requirements under the Freedom of Information Act, and should be treated as formal from that date. I simply asked if the documents could be released informally, that is under administrative access. My email said "Please process this request informally at first, then as a formal Freedom of Information request."
You state in your email that it is "a policy of Australia Post to redact all personal information relating to employees other than senior executive staff when responding to FOI applications." The Freedom of Information Act and the Freedom of Information Guidelines are generally inconsistent with that policy.
You must release a document requested under Freedom of Information unless there is a valid exemption provided for under the Act.
If a conditional exemption were to apply, then a public interest test must be completed. I ask that you advise me if you intend to apply a conditional exemption so that I can provide statements supporting the public interest in releasing the documents.
I look forward to your response within the timeframes provided by the Act
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
Dear Australian Postal Corporation,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Postal Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Customer service complaints - St George's Tce post office'.
- Insufficient Searches
I contend that there were insufficient searches completed. Australia Post has not detailed how it has performed searches in relation to my request, and appears to have produced one document, which was created as a result of my contact with Australia Post.
- Breach of Privacy
I further contend that Australia Post has breached my privacy and has failed to stick to the scope of my request. Australia Post has released substantially more personally identifiable information about me, without confirming my identity or seeking my approval. Furthermore, Australia Post has released my Full Name, Address, the address of a relative of mine (who was not consulted as part of that release), my "product information" and my mobile phone number in response to this request.
- Redactions of Personal Information
On redactions, the removal of employee names is inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Guidelines published by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Relevantly, at 6.140, the Guidelines state:
"Where public servants’ personal information is included in a document because of their usual duties or responsibilities, it would not be unreasonable to disclose unless special circumstances existed."
Therefore, I contend that the removal of employee names is inconsistent with the guidelines. The named officers were performing their public duties at the time the documents were created, and Australia Post has not demonstrated how the release of their names will "substantially and adversely affect their ability to manage contact with the public." In addition, Australia Post was prepared to release an email address ([email address]) which I would contend creates more issues than releasing the name of an employee performing their public duties.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
Good afternoon Mr Fairless,
Find attached letter for your attention.
Regards,
Jan Robinson
Corporate Lawyer
FOI Review Officer
Australia Post
Ben Fairless left an annotation ()
The decision was to release 2 documents related to a single case, however the names of the public servants were redacted, however an email address was not.
As you can see from my internal review, there was a substantial release of my own personal information in response to the request (none of which I asked for or which was relevant).