Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 07 March 2018 and 08 May 2018.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 07 March 2018 and 08 May 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman. Councillor Lock was not present at the 08 May meeting and therefore did not vote on approval of those minutes.

Matters Arising

Robert O’Reilly confirmed that he had circulated the cost of external legal representation at the specified employment tribunal to the Committee on the 08 March 2018.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Purpose: To seek Personnel Committee’s approval of the new policy which aims to set out the Council’s approach to transgender equality in recruitment and at work, and how it will support employees undergoing gender reassignment.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4) concerning a new policy which set out the Council’s approach and commitment to ensuring that transgender people were treated with dignity and were not unlawfully discriminated against or disadvantaged in the workplace. The policy was an important aspect of the Council’s commitment to equal opportunities in employment and was designed to be read in conjunction with the Council’s existing Equality in Employment Policy.

Robert O’ Reilly explained that it had been deemed appropriate to produce a separate policy as transgender equality was a complex and sensitive area. The policy was designed to assist managers albeit that they would be supported by HR. It also set out what the employee could expect of the Council.

Councillor Mollie Lock noted that the Equality Impact Assessment (on page 13) stated, in the outcomes section, that ‘Managers and staff understand how to support colleagues who are transitioning’.  She queried if any training had been provided to staff.  Robert O’ Reilly explained that this was the aim of the policy and it could only be implemented once the policy had been approved. He explained that managers would be alerted to the existence of the policy and they could refer to it should the need arise. Gender reassignment was  one of the nine protected characteristics covered by equality legislation and was already included in the Council’s existing training programme.

Councillor Richard Crumly queried if it was necessary to have a specific policy in place when this issue was already covered by legislation. Robert O’Reilly explained that most local authorities and other large organisations would have a policy in place and that it was felt appropriate for West Berkshire Council to have one too. This was a sensitive issue and it was important for employees to feel supported by their employer. Managers also found these policies and procedures very useful.

Councillor Crumly was concerned that if there was a policy in place and the Council had not adhered to it an employment tribunal might not look favourably on the Council.  Robert O’ Reilly explained that not having a policy might be more of an issue and that if managers applied the policy then the Council would not be open to challenge.

Councillor Crumly queried what costs the Council had incurred in producing the policy. Robert O’ Reilly explained that the only costs incurred were the time taken by Officers to produce the document. In response to a query he explained that in formulating the document the Council would look at a number of sources including Local Government Association (LGA) model policies, other local authorities, ACAS policies, government policies etc. before producing its own policy.

Councillor Crumly noted that the report referred to support for  employees that were transioning and he queried what this support referred to. Robert O’ Reilly explained that this was a reference to the organisation being supportive of the individual and did not imply any financial support.

Councillor Crumly queried if ‘banter’ (page 25) should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Purpose: To make changes to the Council's Pay Policy Statement.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which provided an explanation of the changes to the National Joint Committee (NJC) pay spine which would take effect on 1^st April 2019 and how this would affect the Council. The report also recommended changes to the current pay policy of the Council to facilitate the implementation of the 2019 pay award on the new pay spine.

There were two options available to local authorities in implementing the pay award on the new spine:

·         Option A was to allow employees who were not already at the top of their grade to move up (“increment”) one point on the ‘old’ spinal point column and then to assimilate them to the new spinal point column.

·         Option B was to assimilate employees to the new spinal point column and then allow employees who were not already at the top of their grade on the new spine to move up (“increment”) one point on the new spinal point column.

The NJC guidance stated that each local authority had to decide which option to take. Finance had modelled the two options and recommended Option B as the least expensive way to implement the 2019 pay award for corporate employees. If Option B was approved by the Personnel Committee it would also be applied to support staff in all maintained schools. Councillor Mollie Lock was concerned about the impact that this

could have on schools budgets

The report also took the opportunity to look at the West Berkshire Living Wage Supplement. This was a non-contractual discretionary payment to top up the hourly rate of the lowest spinal column points. The 2018 and 2019 pay awards had addressed the same issue and it was therefore recommended that the West Berkshire Living Wage Supplement should be frozen at its current rate from 1^st October 2018. This was to avoid unplanned changes to wage differentials in future and risks around unequal pay.

The Council ‘shadowed’ the NJC pay award for all its employees (except teachers) with the exception of the Chief Executive which shadowed the national pay award for Chief Executives. It was recommended that this anomaly was ended and from 1^st April 2019 all employees, including the Chief Executive, should receive the same pay award which shadowed the NJC pay award.

RESOLVED that:

1.    Option B be adopted by the Council.

2.    From 1^st April 2009 all employees, including the Chief Executive, to receive the same pay award which shadowed the NJC pay award.

3.    The ‘West Berkshire Living Wage Supplement’ be frozen at its current rate from 1^st October 2018 to avoid unplanned changes to wage differentials in future; and to recognise that schools have not signed up to the “West Berkshire Living Wage Supplement” which has created an equal pay risk.