Agenda item

Purpose: To seek approval for the introduction of performance grades at appraisal for all corporate employees. To seek approval for the use of a competency framework for all corporate employees as part of the appraisal process. To seek approval for the introduction of a new 'enhanced support' procedure for employees who are underperforming but who fall short of the requirements of the formal capability procedure.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) concerning changes to policies and procedures associated with Employee Performance Management. The report sought approval for the introduction of performance grades at appraisal for all employees (not schools). It also sought approval for the use of a competency framework for all corporate employees as part of the process. Lastly the report sought approval for the introduction of a new ‘enhanced support’ procedure for employees who were underperforming but were not yet failing to the extent that they should be subject to a formal Capability Procedure.

Officers explained that the current procedure had been in place since 2006 and it applied to all non-school based employees. In 2012 a new approach had been introduced for Corporate Directors, Heads of Service and those reporting to Heads of Service. The revised approach included  scoring of performance for the first time.

The Leader and some Members of the Executive had met with the Head of HR with a view to introducing a system of performance appraisal for all employees which would ultimately be linked to reward. A new form had therefore been developed which would be introduced from the 01^st April 2015 and the procedures had been updated to reflect this new approach. An ‘enhanced support’ procedure had also been produced to support employees that were underperforming.

Performance would be graded from 1 to 5 with 5 being ‘excellent performance’ and 1 being ‘unsatisfactory performance’. Performance would be appraised against agreed objectives, other significant achievements and the competency framework. The Head of HR explained that objectives described ‘what would be achieved’ and the competencies set out ‘how they should be achieved’. The competency framework included eight broad areas which would apply to all employees and an additional set  for managers.

The Enhanced Support Procedure would be used to support employees scored a 2 on the new performance scales. The procedure was designed to help these employees raise their performance to be at least satisfactory and would be used in a positive way. These employees would have up to a year to raise performance standards. Employees graded as 2 that were not at the top of their grade would not receive an incremental increase on the 01 April. At the six month review, if performance had improved, this could be reinstated although it would not be backdated. .

Workshops have been set up to train all appraisers and an e-learning package was being developed for those unable to attend the training or requiring a refresh.

Councillor Quentin Webb queried what the Unions’ views on the proposal were. Robert O’ Reilly explained that discussions on the proposals had been taking place since the spring. They were supportive of the Enhanced Support Procedure but were not supportive of performance related pay. .

Councillor Quentin Webb queried whether the  appraiser’s line manager would have an opportunity to review the assessment. Officers confirmed that they would have to sign off the appraisals.

The Chairman also queried how these changes would be reported to Members. Officers explained that an article would appear in the next edition of the ‘Reporter’. Members were included on the circulation list for this publication and the two Group Executives would be asked to highlight the article to Members.

Councillor Adrian Edwards noted that the scheme did not apply to non-teaching school staff. Robert O’ Reilly stated that an adapted policy could be sent out to the schools and training could be offered. However it would be up to the individual schools to decide whether or not they wanted to adopt the policy. An article would be placed in the schools’ newsletter.

Councillor Adrian Edwards queried what appeal mechanism would be put in place in the event that an employee disagreed with the score they were given. The Head of HR explained that the person being appraised could request a three way meeting involving the  appraiser and their line manager to discuss the score. If they were still unhappy with the outcome after that meeting they could take out a grievance.

Councillor Tony Linden highlighted the need to ensure that those that did not have access to the internet have appropriate training in place or that they be able to undertake e-learning at work.

Councillor Quentin Webb queried what timescales were in place for reviewing the scheme.  Robert O’ Reilly explained that the reward scheme would not be in place until April 2017 and the impact could then be assessed and any ensuing review would need to take that into account; so a review after three years was the best approach.

RESOLVED that:

(1)               the introduction of performance grades at appraisal for all employees be approved;

(2)               the introduction of a competency framework for employees and managers which will be used as part of the appraisal process be approved;

(3)               the introduction of a new appraisal form be approved;

(4)               the introduction of a new Enhanced Support Procedure to provide extra help for employees judged to be underperforming but not meeting the criteria for formal Capability procedure be approved; and

(5)               a revised Employee Performance Management Procedure that takes account of points 1- 4 above be approved.

(6)               Robin Steel and Gillian Durrant to alert Members to read the article once it appeared in Reporter.