To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.
Minutes:
(A) Terms and Conditions Review (Report by Secretary to the Employer’s Side)
The Interim Head of People and Organisational Services explained that the report circulated as a supplementary item of business, had been superseded by the results of the recent ballot. The purpose of the report, had been to provide the Panel with an update in relation to the revised Terms and Conditions but that a collective agreement had not been reached.
Unison officers explained that there were issues and uncertainty about essential / casual car user arrangements. Within some job descriptions, staff had been told that they needed a car to do their job and yet were not eligible for an essential user allowance under the new proposals. Unison therefore felt that staff should not be required to bring their car to work on a daily basis. Unison Officers stated that Staff needed to know whether the needed to bring their car to work or not. Unison sought clarification that Staff could use public transport if necessary and whether staff would be disciplined as casual users, if they did not make their car available for work use.
The Interim Head of People and Organisational Services stated that staff needed to under their duties as required by their contract. Using public transport was an option then this was open for discussion. If they refused to undertake their job, then normal processes would be followed. If staff travelled 2000 business miles they would be entitled to an essential car user allowance. If not they would receive a casual car allowance. She stated that Essential Car User allowances would be reviewed annually. She accepted that they would be exceptions, including mobility issues, and that these matters would be discussed with Line Managers.
In response to a query from Councillor M R Alexander concerning the 2,000 essential car user allowance and guidelines for claiming allowances, the Secretary to the Employer’s Side undertook to provide Members with further information on claiming mileage and the Council’s Expenses Policy. The Secretary to the Employer’s Side stated that Head of Service were asked to review mileage of their staff and the policy was based on the claims made.
Unison referred to other Councils and the use of the word “desirable” in terms of reimbursement.
RESOLVED - that (A) the report be noted;
(B) the Secretary to the Employer’s Side circulate further information on claiming mileage and the Expenses Policy to all Members of the Local Joint Panel.
(B) Staff Implications of Emergency Budget proposals - Secretary to the Staff Side
The Secretary of the Staff Side acknowledged that the Council must
manage its business and that the purpose of discussion was to avoid
unnecessary redundancies. He stressed
the need for good communication to take place. The Secretary to the Staff Side referred to the
report to Corporate Business Strategy on 24 August (MTFP) which
considered a number of proposals to achieve savings and which had
staffing implications. The Secretary to
the Staff Side referred to the imminent meeting of Council on 29
September, when Members, (via Corporate Business Scrutiny and the
Executive), would be asked to agree to savings which had staffing
implications (set out in Essential Reference Paper “H”
– Executive 7 September 2010). Unison was concerned that the report had not
only identified what savings needed to be made, but had identified
posts for deletion and the reduction of hours of staff within
Democratic Services and Electoral service areas.
It was noted that the measures which had been identified in the report to the Executive, were measures which had been identified within the MTPF in the previous financial year which were not agreed at that time, but Members had asked that these should be brought forward at a later date, if necessary.
Unison acknowledged that savings needed to be achieved but was concerned that proper consultation had not taken place. It sought amendment to the recommendation contained within the Executive minutes of 7 September 2010, specifically that Members be asked to agree “in principle” approval to the measures being put forward where there were staffing implications, rather than agreeing to measures in absolute terms. Unison was concerned that there had not been proper consultation on what was being sought and this was contrary to agreed policies and undermined the Council’s redundancy policy. The Secretary to the Employer’s Side stated that the savings identified in Essential Reference Paper H had already been set out the previous MTFP, but remained subject to approval. She stated that, in any event, where there were staffing implications, the appropriate procedures would be followed in line in HR policies; this would include informal and formal consultation with appropriate staff and UNISON.
It was acknowledged that Local Joint Panel would normally report to Human Resources Committee. However, Unison felt that Council on 29 September 2010 should be asked to agree only items where the savings did not identify specific posts for deletion, to enable appropriate consultation to take place.
Upon a vote being taken, the Panel agreed that Council be asked:
RESOLVED - (A) to identify service areas where cuts to staff applied:
(B)
to delete posts which have already been identified as “vacant
posts” subject to an appropriate
business case;
(C) where staff reductions have been identified, the Director of Internal Services be requested to provide a report on how these can be implemented and that this be brought back for further consideration by Members in the New Year, after full consultation had taken place.