Agenda item

The Secretary to the Staff Side submitted a report concerning issues which Unison considered relevant to the efficient operation of the organisation which had arisen when the Chief Executive had left the authority by mutual agreement and of how UNISON might support the selection process in appointing senior managers.

Paul Farley (UNISON, Region) explained that UNISON did not have a Branch Secretary at the moment.  He explained that the report questioned whether process had been followed and properly applied, i.e. was someone’s employment being terminated correctly?  He referred to the need to ensure complete transparency in its dealings in such matters.  Paul Farley stated that for UNISON to meet potential Chief Officers prior to being interviewed, might be beneficial to all.  He was concerned that the Hay Scheme was used to evaluate some staff, but not all. 

A Member felt that meeting potential Chief Officers in advance, might be useful for some candidates and would provide the opportunity for them to evaluate whether the Council was for them. 

Staff Side expressed concern that the report author had been asked to revise the report and stressed the need for the Staff Side to be totally independent in its dealings.  

Staff Side commented on the lack of communication and keeping staff informed about the absence of the Chief Executive.  Staff appeared to be kept up to date via the local press.  It was acknowledged that the details of the Chief Executive’s absence should be kept personal, but that the matter seemed to be shrouded in secrecy.

The Director of Internal Services confirmed that any comments he had made on the Staff Side’s report were only suggestions on style rather than substance and he had stressed that it was a decision for UNISON to accept them or not. He confirmed that due process had been fully complied with throughout, legal advice had been taken and observed.   In terms of the Job Evaluation Scheme, he stated that the Local Government Association (LGA) had a scheme which might be helpful for senior appointments and that the merits of this scheme would be assessed against the Hay Scheme.

The Chief Executive and Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that due process had been followed at all times when the previous Chief Executive had left the council.  He pointed out specific statements in the report that were simply factually incorrect and based on conjecture. He was disappointed with the report which he felt was based on ill founded assumptions, gossip and speculation. 

Staff Side agreed to the deletion of the second sentence in paragraph 3.2 of the report now submitted.

A Member suggested that the Panel should look forward rather than reflecting on what had happened. 

The Secretary to the Employer’s Side confirmed that she would continue to look at the Hay Scheme and the LGA Scheme and evaluate the merits of both.  Staff Side confirmed that the integrity of the scheme needed to be observed and applied to the whole of the organisation.

RESOLVED – that (A) the report be noted;

(B)     Staff Side’s preference for the Hay Scheme be noted and be taken into account in determining future arrangements for the evaluation of Chief Officer and heads of service posts; and

(C)    Consideration be given as to how staff might be engaged in Chief Officer appointments to allow candidates to gain a fuller understanding of the Council