102 annual report 2010 concurrently, the total case processing time for the environmental approval case would probably have been shorter. The Ombudsman did not criticise that the local authority put the final decision in the case in abeyance until the Nature Protection Board of Appeal had decided whether the expansion was EIA obligatory. The Board referred the case back to the local authority, and in this context the Ombudsman recommended that the local authority speed up the EIA case as much as possible. (Case No. 2009-4166-100) 13. Warning on insufficient grounds A trade union complained on behalf of a child welfare worker about a written warning from the Region. The grounds for the warning were that the child welfare worker had involved the parents of an institution’s residents in an internal conflict. As documentation, the Region referred to information in an internal memo. The Ombudsman stated that, based on the information in the case, he could not find that the Region’s central administration had any knowledge of the memo when the warning was given. In addition, the Ombudsman found that there was no basis for alleging that the child welfare worker had involved parents in an internal conflict. Giving out factual information about a suspension from duty was not involvement, nor was it disloyal, and there was no breach of her duty of confidentiality. Consequently, the grounds given for the warning were inadequate, and the Ombudsman recommended that the case be reopened. (Case No. 2009-3401-812) 14. Local authority’s duty to react to information in complaint about private supplier of arch supports A man lodged several complaints about the local authority supplier of arch supports because in his opinion the supplier had not provided him with usable arch supports. The Ombudsman stated that when an authority enters into a contract with a company to provide the authority or citizens with services for payment, the ­authority must supervise that the company fulfils the requirements set out in