Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4^th February 2014 and the 15 May 2014.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 4 February 2014 and 15 May 2014 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Chairman.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Tony Linden, Andrew Rowles and Quentin Webb declared an interest in Agenda Item 5, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Purpose: To propose a reversal of the current policy of the Council not to recognise continuous service with academy schools for the purpose of occupational benefits.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4) which proposed a reversal of the current policy of the Council not to recognise continuous service with academy schools for the purpose of occupational benefits.

Robert O’Reilly introduced the report and reminded Members of the Personnel Committee’s decision in 2011 to approve a policy for the Council not to recognise continuous service of employees working in academy schools for the purpose of calculating entitlement to occupational benefits such as sick pay, maternity/paternity/adoption pay and leave, and annual leave. This decision was taken at a time when the potential for a local authority maintained school to convert to academy status was relatively new and there were concerns at the time as academies could alter the terms and conditions of its employees from the terms and conditions used in maintained schools.

In August 2013, trade unions, via the Joint Consultative Panel (JCP), requested that the Personnel Committee review the policy for reasons including the concern that the policy prevented schools from recruiting the best people, as those working in an academy were being put off by the fact that they would not have their academy service recognised for the above mentioned occupational benefits. Headteachers had also highlighted this as a barrier to recruitment. In addition, the potential for an academy to alter the terms and conditions of staff had not been an issue.

Councillor Peter Argyle queried whether the continuous service of teachers in private schools was recognised. Robert O’Reilly confirmed that this was not the case and academy staff were, at present, considered in the same way as someone working in a private school. This would also be the case for free schools.

Councillors Quentin Webb and Mollie Lock reported that as Members of the JCP they were present for the JCP discussion on this matter.

At the JCP, trade unions had requested to attend Personnel Committee to put forward their views and Members agreed to suspend standing orders to allow the representatives to do so.

Councillor Webb welcomed the trade union representatives to the meeting and invited them to make their points.

David Pearson made the following points on behalf of Unison:

·              The Unison members to whom this report related were primarily support staff working in schools. He was pleased to note the recommendation of the report to recognise service in academy schools which would be advantageous to both staff and schools. Headteachers had also given their support to the recommendation.

·              Approval of the Officer recommendation would show support and appreciation to loyal members of staff, many of whom had worked in a local authority school for some years and had no control over becoming a member of staff of an academy. Therefore, their academy service should be recognised.

·              The change to the policy would have minimal cost impact on the Council and schools.

Councillor Tony Linden queried whether the service of staff who worked in a free school should also be recognised. David Pearson explained that the concern of trade unions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Purpose: To agree a set of policies and discretions applicable to the 2014 Pension Scheme.

(Councillors Tony Linden, Andrew Rowles and Quentin Webb declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5 by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Local Government Pension Scheme. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a discloseable pecuniary interest they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) which proposed the Council’s policy in relation to a number of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Regulations.

Robert O’Reilly explained that with effect from 1 April 2014, the LGPS Regulations 2013 and the LGPS (Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Regulations 2014 came into force. Under these Regulations, it was a requirement of LGPS employers to prepare, maintain and keep under review a statement of policy concerning a number of discretions made available throughout the Regulations. The report and its appendices outlined the changes required and made a number of recommendations for Member’s consideration. The recommendations took into account the views expressed by Management Board Members. Advice had also been sought from the Royal Berkshire Pension Fund.

LGPS 2013 Regulation 16 – Additional Pension Contributions

Recommendation: not to fund an employee’s additional pension contributions. Robert O’Reilly commented that funding an employee’s additional pension contributions had not previously been the Council’s practice and it was not felt that a change would be necessary.

RESOLVED that the recommendation be agreed.

LGPS 2013 Regulation 30(6) – Flexible Retirement

Recommendation: to accept applications where there was no cost to the employer subject to there being no detrimental impact on the service. Robert O’Reilly commented that this was a significant change to the LGPS as it enabled a LGPS employee to retire at the age of 55, with reductions to their entitlement. This was currently at the age of 60.

(Councillor Tony Linden left the meeting at 2.56pm).

Jane Milone added that, if approved, the Council’s retirement procedure would be amended to reflect this.

RESOLVED that the recommendation be agreed.

LGPS 2013 Regulation 30(8) – Waiving of Actuarial Reduction

Recommendation: that a decision to waive any actuarial reduction would only be considered where there would be a financial or other benefit to the employer.

RESOLVED that the recommendation be agreed.

LGPS 2013 Regulation 31 – Award of Additional Pension

Recommendation: not to award additional pension except in the following circumstances:

Additional pension under regulation 31 might be awarded to an employee who would otherwise be eligible for a lump sum compensation payment under the WBC Discretionary Compensation policy. Where the employee agreed to forgo the lump sum payment (in excess of any statutory redundancy compensation) that would otherwise have been paid, the Council would award additional pension actuarially equivalent in value to the lump sum compensation payment, provided that the additional annual pension would not exceed the statutory limits.

(Councillor Linden returned to the meeting at 2.59pm).

Jane Milone explained that approval of this recommendation would offer employees the opportunity to invest in their LGPS, with no additional cost  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Purpose: To propose the adoption of a policy which sets out how the Council will deal with close personal relationships at work which might involve, or be perceived to involve, conflicts of interest.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which proposed the adoption of a policy which set out how the Council would deal with close personal relationships at work which might involve, or be perceived to involve, conflicts of interest.

Councillor Quentin Webb queried to whom an employee would disclose a personal relationship and the format for doing so. Jane Milone explained that an officer would need to disclose the information and seek a view from their line manager (or the next tier of management if the relationship was with the line manager). The line manager would seek further advice if necessary.

The policy had been drafted at the request of Corporate Board to ensure clear guidance was in place to help protect employees. Many other local authorities already had a policy in place for reporting relationships both within the organisation and with contractors.

Elements of the draft policy already existed in the Officer Code of Conduct and as part of the Council’s recruitment processes. The policy would bring together the necessary elements into one place, but it was not the intention to significantly change existing arrangements.

In terms of the actual format for disclosing information, it was Robert O’Reilly’s general expectation that, following discussion between the employee and their line manager, it would be put in writing in an e-mail and a note placed on the individual’s HR file.

Councillor Adrian Edwards stated that he was very uncomfortable with the proposals outlined in the report and could not support the recommendation to adopt a policy. He felt the need for a policy was a concern in terms of human rights and was overly bureaucratic when considering that a Code of Conduct was already in place.

Robert O’Reilly agreed this was a sensitive issue, but reiterated that elements of the draft policy were already in existence in other documents and the policy would serve to bring this together in one place as requested by Corporate Board.

Councillor Edwards queried whether this applied to relationships between Councillors and employees of the Council/Council contractors. Robert O’Reilly explained that as Councillors were elected they were not subject to contract rules of procedure. However, Councillors had their own Code of Conduct to adhere to.

Robert O’Reilly acknowledged the concern in relation to human rights, but assured Members that a similar policy was in place in other local authorities and the Council’s draft policy took into account guidance from the Council’s on-line employment law provider (XpertHR). However, if the policy was not approved then current arrangements would continue.

Councillor Andrew Rowles queried whether consideration was needed in relation to an employee’s membership of an external organisation. Jane Milone advised that employees would need to consider how any relationship or membership could be perceived externally in terms of decision making.

Jane Milone advised that trade unions had been consulted and comments were received, but this only led to minor amendments to the draft policy. A suggestion of Unison was to include some guidance as an appendix  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Potential dates for the next meeting would be circulated when necessary.