Agenda item

Purpose: The report is to explore whether the Council should do more to encourage employees to buy additional leave (excluding schools).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) which sought to explore whether the Council should do more to encourage employees to buy additional leave (excluding schools).

Robert O’Reilly explained that this item had been presented to Committee following a request by Councillor Lee Dillon. The ability to buy additional leave was not something that had been raised by employees either directly or via the ‘Let’s Chat’ workshops. He also highlighted that local government employees enjoyed more annual leave than those working in the private sector. Staff could also take time off in lieu and unpaid leave was already available to employees in particular circumstances.

A concern arising from employees buying additional leave was the increased workload impact this would have on other members of staff. Robert O’Reilly gave the Officer view that the potential to buy additional leave should not be advertised with the option of taking unpaid leave already available.

Councillor Paul Bryant sought to understand whether a saving could be made if employees bought additional leave or would any saving need to be used to offset the cost of overtime being paid to cover workload requirements. Robert O’Reilly explained that no corporate savings could be assumed from this approach and agreed that costs could be incurred from paying overtime, i.e. to a part time employee increasing their hours to cover the workload. Overtime was paid at time and a third.

Councillor Bryant felt it was questionable whether more should be done to ‘encourage’ staff to buy additional leave (in line with the view of the Head of Human Resources). He felt that staff could take unpaid leave if necessary. Councillor Pamela Bale added that unpaid leave had to be an exception rather than the rule. The ability to buy additional leave was a further exception. She added her concern at the impact on existing staff who would need to cover any outstanding workload.

Councillor Mollie Lock then sought to clarify Councillor Dillon’s viewpoint on this matter. His view was that, potentially, a member of staff could, at the start of the leave year (which mirrored the financial year), make a request to buy additional leave. The salary deduction could then be spread over the course of the year. If the request was made without this level of notice then the cost would need to be met within that month’s pay.

Councillor Lock fully understood Councillor Dillon’s suggestion, but gave her view that this approach could over complicate matters and it was more straightforward for unpaid leave to be deducted from the relevant month’s pay.

Councillor Richard Crumly noted from paragraph 5.2 of the report that the Council used the deduction rate of 1/365 of annual salary for each day of unpaid leave. He queried why this was the case as this methodology included weekends. Robert O’Reilly explained that this approach was in line with case law and followed the 1870 Apportionment Act. Robert O’Reilly agreed to provide the case law information to Councillor Crumly. He accepted that the 1/365 model meant staff would pay less for additional leave than would be the case with weekends excluded, but this was also the method used to pay staff who left the authority for any untaken annual leave – i.e. lower cost at that stage.

Councillor Bryant queried what form publicity of this option would take and whether staff would need to apply for additional leave by completing a form. Robert O’Reilly confirmed this would be the case if Personnel Committee approved doing more to encourage employees. However, the Officer recommendation was to take no further action in terms of encouraging staff to buy additional leave. The Council’s website already outlined the options available to staff.

Councillor Crumly returned to the point that local government employees enjoyed more annual leave than those working in the private sector. He queried what happened in the event that staff did not take all their annual leave. Robert O’Reilly confirmed that staff could carry over a maximum of five days into the new leave year. He added that the taking of annual leave was always at the line manager’s discretion.

In closing and summarising the Committee’s debate and position on this matter, Councillor Bale stated that while the Committee noted the proposal, it took the decision to not do anything further to encourage employees to buy additional leave. This was enforced by the existing ability to take unpaid leave in exceptional circumstances.

RESOLVED that nothing further would be done to encourage employees to buy additional leave.