Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 9 February 2015 and 19 May 2015.

The Minutes of the meetings held on the 09^th February 2015 and the 19^th May 2015 were approved as a true and correct record 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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Purpose: To review the current multiplier of 2.0 used in redundancy calculations at West Berkshire Council to ensure that it is set at an appropriate level compared to other local authorities.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4) concerning  a review of the current multiplier of 2.0 used in redundancy calculations at West Berkshire Council to ensure that it was set at an appropriated level when compared to other local authorities.

Jane Milone in introducing the item explained that Members were being asked to consider the level of  enhancement the Council paid under the statutory redundancy scheme.  Redundancy payments  were based on a combination of age and years of continuous service  The maximum number of weeks’ pay for a redundancy payment was 30 weeks. The maximum lump sum compensation payment that could be made to employees that were made redundant was 104 weeks’ pay which equated to a multiplier of 3.46.

Up until October 2011 West Berkshire Council used a multiplier of three times the statutory number of weeks’ pay. The Personnel Committee at that time decided to reduce the multiplier to two. Following a comparison with other local authorities it was now being proposed to reduce the multiplier to 1.5 with a proposal from Members that the rate being further reduced to one in December 2016. In response to a query from the Chairman the HR Manager explained that, when compared to other authorities, the Council was quite generous in this regard.

(Councillor Adrian Edwards arrived at 2.35pm. Councillor Edwards stated that as he was not present at the start of the discussion he would take part in the debate but would not vote on this item,)

The Chairman explained that he had received a request from the Unions to address the Committee. In accordance with paragraphs 7.6.2 (Motions which may be moved without notice) and 7.12.4 (speaking) Members agreed to suspend standing orders and afforded the union representative and staff present the opportunity to address the Committee.

Dave Pearson explained that he had been asked to put forward the joint views of both Unison and GMB. He explained that his comments would be broken down into three areas: a review of staff comments, consideration of facts and figures and then a summary of the views of both Unions.

He explained that given the importance of this item the unions felt that it was important to engage the views of all staff/ An email had been sent to all Members asking for their comments on the proposal. Responses had been received from both Union and GMB Members and also from staff who were not members of the unions.  Comments had been received from employees at all levels of the organisation. To date 54 responses had been received.

Mr Pearson stated that in general staff felt that the proposals were  disgraceful and a betrayal and would impact badly on trust and goodwill. It was also felt that the proposal was hypocritical given that Members had recently awarded themselves a large increase in their own allowances. The was also a degree of cynicism about the timing of the decision in terms of the staff satisfaction survey and that some employees had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Purpose: To discuss a systematic approach to succession planning as part of service planning following discussion of this subject at Corporate Management Team on 6th May 2015.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) concerning  a systematic approach to succession planning as part of service planning following discussion of this subject at the Corporate Management Team on the 06^th May 2015. The Committee was also asked to consider if they supported a proposal that services be permitted to designate a ‘deputy Head of Service’ to help with succession planning.

Jane Milone in introducing the item explained that due to the requirement for all vacancies to be advertised succession planning was difficult to put into practice in local authorities. However the proposed approach would afford senior managers the opportunity to develop the necessary skills prior to applying for a Head of Service role. HR had produced a set of guidance notes on how to implement the scheme.

The scheme was being trialled in the Culture and Environmental Protection Team with the role of deputy to be rotated on an annual basis by the senior managers. Officers would be expected to attend training and would be afforded the opportunity to shadow the Head of Service. In addition they would be expected to take on some responsibility when the Head of Service was not at work and could be paid a small honorarium to reflect the addition responsibility. All payments would have to me from within existing service budgets.

Members were supportive of the proposals.

RESOLVED that:

1.    Heads of Service include a systematic approach to succession planning based on the concept of risk management (likelihood and impact) and that this approach forms  part of the overall approach to business continuity;

2.    Services be permitted to designate a ‘deputy Head of Service’ to help with succession planning.