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:
The Secretary to the Staff Side requested that an item of urgent business be considered concerning UNISON’s response to the Revenues and Benefits Shared Service with Stevenage. UNISON requested that the issue be discussed as an urgent item to facilitate the business of the Council given that the issue would be discussed at the Executive on 15 June 2011.
The Director of Internal Services was concerned about the relevancy of the item being considered at the Panel, as he felt the proposals did not raise any HR policy issues.
Councillor J Ranger acknowledged the Director’s comments but felt that there were some aspects within the papers which had been circulated earlier, that were relevant for the Panel and which warranted consideration.
Staff Side thanked Councillor J Ranger for his support. The UNISON representative stated that there were decisions which would be taken by the Executive on 15 June 2011 which could affect staff, as such, she stated that this was the appropriate forum. Councillor A Jackson supported the request by UNISON and agreed to articulate their views to the Executive.
The UNISON representative referred to the Revenues and Benefits standards of service and of the fact that staff had built up areas of expertise. The benefits of shared services were acknowledged, but she expressed concern that the time frames for consultation left staff with the impression that comments were not being listened to. She stated that staff were concerned about accommodation. She acknowledged that some staff would be based at Bishop’s Stortford but that there would be an additional 40 extra staff from Stevenage in Hertford and that this might force people to work from home.
The Staff Side sought assurances that the savings proposed would be made and that this would not be detrimental to the service. She referred to the TUPE regulations and the conflicting and confusing statements on the legal position in not being able to make staff redundant if connected with TUPE but that staff could be made redundant under TUPE for “economic, technical or organisational” reasons and referred to the fact that six staff would be lost in order to make efficiency savings.
The UNISON representative referred to the gap in grades between 5 – 9. She expressed doubts about the use of generic job descriptions because there was a need to specialise in some areas of revenues and benefits. From a financial perspective, she queried whether the level of contingency should be larger.
The Staff Side referred to IT and of proposals to reduce this service. The representative expressed concern at this possibility within the context of a proposal to take on staff from Stevenage.
Councillor A Jackson referred to the Executive’s preferred route of shared services and of the needs to balance this in regard to the right philosophy, attitude and culture towards the provision of quality services. He stated that the shared approach contributed significantly to the savings which needed to be made in the years ahead. He stated that job descriptions would form a part of conversations between HR and UNISON.
The Panel received UNISON’s comments. Councillor A Jackson agreed to pass these on to the Executive on 15 June 2011
RESOLVED – that (A) UNISON’s comments be received;
and
(B) the Leader pass
on UNISON’s comments to the Executive on 15 June
2011.