Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr D Edwards and Cllr J Duncan who was substituted by Cllr D Palethorpe

The Minutes of the meeting held on the 27^th April 2010 were signed by the Chair.

None

The Unison representative, Ms Avery addressed the Committee and commented that whilst the future of public services was very much in the public eye and staff and the services they provide should be celebrated for their contributions. Staff should therefore be treated humanely and supported through the difficult times that lay ahead. Frustration of staff had been noted, as the process had been lengthy and people felt they were left in limbo during the apparent lack of progress. This indicated the thoroughness of the process had been tackled and it was noted that a section of the workforce had not been included in the process at all. Unison would endeavour to make themselves available to meaningful consultation right up until the door closes and hoped to meet later in the month with the Head of Human Resources and the rest of the Pay and Grading Team.

The GMB representative, Mr Richards addressed the Committee and reported that the joint trade unions have not agreed the proposals.  More specifically, that GMB are fundamentally opposed to them. He stated that the report sets out some of the implications of a proposed pay structure and how this will impact upon employees, but that was not the complete picture.  Taking into account the full range of the proposals, including allowances, etc., he said that 32.1% of employees will lose money.  Effectively, a pay cut for 1/3 of the workforce. He added that on basic salary alone, the report states that 111 employees will lose in excess of £2,500.  That equates to 1 in 10 of the workforce and that the figure will rise, taking into account the full range of proposals.

Mr Richards reminded the Committee that the proposals do not apply to the highest paid employees of the Council. 

Mr Richards went on to identify other specific concerns regarding aspects of the proposals. The concerns related to the period of up to one year pay protection for staff that lose money and the move from service related increments to an untried system of pay progression.

He stated that the period of pay protection is far less than the maximum period justified through equal pay legislation and is far less than that offered by many local authorities.  He added that, previously, the Chief Executive has stated to staff that the Council will protect employees who lose money within what the law allows.  These proposals contradict that commitment.

Regarding the pay progression proposal, Mr Richards stated that the new system would limit incremental progression for employees and amounted to another form of pay cut.

Mr Richards stated that Council employees have been working in a climate of job cuts, potential outsourcing and two years without pay awards. On top of this, the proposals introduce worse terms and conditions and pay cuts for 1 in 3 staff.

He confirmed that, as a trade union, GMB represents the best interests of their members and cannot accept the proposals.  If the council follows the recommendations in the report,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

None

(Copy to follow- 7 September 2010)

The Head of Human Resources outlined the report to the Committee and informed them that the single status agreement had been signed in 1997 and that there had been two previous attempts to undertake the process but there had been a failure to reach any satisfactory solutions.

A questionnaire had been undertaken and the results had been analysed independently and sent through to the job evaluation panel. Each score had been checked to ensure that the hierarchy was correct and the fact that the job evaluation process had been so detailed resulted in the extensive time taken to complete. Extensive involvement with the Unions had been carried out, each of which had the power to veto a proposed scheme. It was noted that 22 different schemes had been considered however, having failed to reach a resolution with the Trade Unions at local levels, communication was extended to regional levels in an attempt at reconciliation, as there was a want to have collective agreement.

Cllr Simpson asked why NBC was offering a 1-year pay protection agreement when other Councils had offered up to 3 years. It was acknowledged that neighbouring authorities had offered a similar agreement. The Borough Solicitor informed the Committee that a continuation of pay protection over 3 years would open up more legal risks and a balance would be needed to address any inequality issues.

Cllr Mildren asked whether the pay protection agreement would be a saving to the Council. The Director of Finance and Support answered by informing the Committee that the Medium Term Financial Plan superficially looked as though savings would be made but there would be a spending of about £1.5 million and that in terms of finances the HRA and the General Fund should be regarded as two separate things.

Cllr Glynane asked if of the 22 different options considered, had any agreements been struck and if there was figure between 20 and 30 percent of staff being affected that had previously been reached. The head of Human Resources stated that the best pay model achievable was attained and different options had been explored within the settings of the key increments.  However, it was the actual percentage of people affected that the GMB had strongly objected to instead preferring the 20 percent or below figure.

A handout was distributed by the Chief Executive, which indicated the numbers of people who would gain, loose and stay the same. He went on to explain that producing an equal pay structure would involve finding the pay protection capital through the General Reserve and informed Members that management would be very mindful of the individuals who would be affected by pay cuts and the Council would support them through the process and emphasised that it would be undesirable to have cases bought against the Council on the grounds of inequality.

Cllr Palethorpe asked of the involvement between management and the Trade Unions of the 310 people set to loose and what work would be carried out with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

THE CHAIR TO MOVE:

“THAT THE PUBLIC BE EXCLUDED FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE IS LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSURE TO THEM OF SUCH CATEGORIES OF EXEMPT INFORMATION AS DEFINED BY SECTION 100(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS LISTED AGAINST SUCH ITEMS OF BUSINESS BY REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE PARAGRAPH OF SCHEDULE 12A TO SUCH ACT.”

The Chair moved that the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that there was likely to be disclosure to them of such categories of exempt information as defined by Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 as listed against such items of business by reference to the appropriate paragraph of Schedule 12A to such Act.

The Motion was Carried.