Agenda item

Purpose:

·         Following a restructure in the Strategy and Governance Department resulting in the creation of 21.5 new posts, including investment into an additional 7.5 posts, 14 posts are to be deleted.  This results in the potential for some redundancies.  This report seeks authority for redundancy payments to be made if necessary.

·         The overarching purpose of the new structure in Strategy and Governance is to:

•    Improve the delivery of services to the Council’s customers  

•    Enhance and consolidate the Council’s governance arrangements

•   Deliver more effective digital and transformation solutions that provide better services

•    Continue to provide effective support services to the Council

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning a restructure in the Strategy and Governance Department resulting in the creation of 21.5 new posts, including investment into an additional 7.5 posts (one of which was fixed term for 12 months), 14 post were to be deleted. This resulted in the potential for some redundancies and the report sought authority for redundancy payments to be made if necessary. The overarching purpose of the new structure in Strategy and Governance was to:

·         Improve the delivery of services to the Council’s customers;

·         Enhance and consolidate the council’s governance arrangements;

·         Deliver more effective digital and transformation solutions that provided better services;

·         Continue to provide effective support services to the Council.

Councillor Jo Stewart was pleased to have the opportunity to present this Part I version of the report so that she could give further insight into the reasoning of officers for this restructure.

A reorganisation in any organisation could never be entered into lightly. They were both very time consuming and had an unsettling effect on those involved. A reorganisation was of course most difficult when it involved redundancies. Councillor Stewart did make it clear that not all deleted posts would result in redundancies being made. It was anticipated that some of those officers identified as being at risk of redundancy would be redeployed into a new role.

However, a reorganisation was at times necessary as all organisations needed to grow and adapt with the times, especially to meet the requirements of their customers.

Councillor Stewart then stated that strong and effective governance was vital for any local authority. Therefore, the new roles included bringing in additional legal expertise and experience that would work, for example, on ensuring that residents’ information remained secure and that key services were able to provide information to residents as soon as possible.

The new structure would also help to deliver transformational initiatives and introduce more effective digitisation solutions that would benefit both officers and residents.

Communication had become of even greater importance that before, as evidenced throughout the pandemic. It was important to build on the work undertaken to date. The new structure would help to deliver the Communication and Engagement Strategy, and find ways to engage more with young people.

The reorganisation also offered career development and career pathways to officers. This was an area highlighted by officers as being a need.

Councillor Stewart advised that she had been questioned on the timing of the restructure during a pandemic. In response to that point she highlighted two particularly key areas.

There was, in some areas of work, a reliance on paper based processes which were very difficult to deliver when it had been necessary to work remotely. This was not sustainable.

Neither should there be an over reliance on individuals. This was not sustainable for either the individual concerned or their colleagues. Greater resilience was needed.

Councillor Stewart concluded by stating she had every confidence in officers to deliver a renewed and reinvigorated structure that would help the Council deliver the transformation needed for the Digital Strategy and the Community and Engagement Strategy in particular. 

In seconding the report Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that as Leader of the Council it was her duty to ensure that the valued services provided by the Council to residents continued to improve into the future. This could result in the need to take difficult decisions that impacted on individuals. However, the Council primarily existed to support the communities of West Berkshire with services run in the interest of residents. Services should be delivered in the most effective and efficient ways possible. West Berkshire Council was committed within the Council Strategy to do so and provide sustainable services through innovation and partnerships. It was therefore important to review ways of working and embrace changes and opportunities made possible by technology. Councillor Doherty was pleased that the restructure would help to improve services provided to residents via digital and transformation solutions.

The restructure unfortunately meant that some existing posts would be deleted, but she pointed out that the Council would be following its organisational change policy which meant that dedicated support would be provided to help those at risk of redundancy find suitable redeployment within the Council. The policy provided salary protection for a period of up to 18 months if an officer was redeployed to a post that was a grade lower than their previous role.

Redundancies were a worse-case scenario and she understood the difficulties this created for individuals. However, there were times when a reorganisation was necessary and these proposals were driven by business need.

Councillor Graham Bridgman commented that it was useful to reflect upon the progress being made by the Council. Each of the three Directorates had an Executive Director in place. This enabled the Chief Executive a more strategic role. Service Directors had also been created and it was important to allow those officers the ability to make decisions on the structure of their service in liaison with their Executive Director and the Chief Executive. This report was an example of this. The restructure had been through a lengthy consultation process.

It was regrettable that staff could be lost, but the restructure was needed to reflect the needs of the organisation and the needs of residents. He was supportive of the restructure and stated that more people would be employed in the service than before.

Councillor Lee Dillon explained that he was grateful for the briefings he had received from the Service Director on this restructure which were helpful in understanding its aims. He had noted changes to the structure post these briefings.

He agreed that it was for Service Directors to lead on restructures, but this was an area of the Council where Councillors had regular interaction and greater involvement was therefore appropriate.

Greater digitisation of services should be aimed for and it was right that this was part of the restructure. Councillor Dillon recognised however that this was at an early stage and time should be allowed for the new structure to be implemented, but he requested that progress be reviewed in perhaps one year’s time to assess if the efficiencies being aimed for were being achieved.

Councillor Carolyne Culver felt that the timing of this proposal was terrible. She acknowledged that new jobs were being created as well as being deleted, but this was at a time when the labour market was poor and Councillor Culver was concerned that should people be made redundant at the end of this process then they could struggle to find work.

She then sought reassurance that existing staff could apply for the newly created jobs and had the necessary skills to do so. If there was a skills gap then would officers be trained to enable them to stay with the Council?

Councillor Stewart acknowledged the point around timing. She was in a position where she was able to emphasise with the difficult circumstance this had put some staff in. However, the timing of a restructure would always be difficult.

Councillor Stewart then confirmed that efforts would be made to fill any skills gaps to enable an officer to apply for a new role. The workforce should be empowered to improve their skills base.

Councillor Culver then referred to paragraph 5.5 of the report which mentioned single points of failure. She requested further information on that and particular areas where this was the case. In response, Councillor Stewart stated that an over reliance on some roles/individuals was not sustainable at this or indeed at any other time. She gave Land Charges as an example of an area of work that was primarily run on a paper based process and stated that the opportunity should be taken to make use of technology to improve the service provided and make it more efficient for residents using sustainable solutions.

Paragraph 5.14 stated that the Council would support staff in being redeployed, but Councillor Culver asked for clarification on whether staff would be compelled to be redeployed into a lower grade role. Would an employee still be entitled to redundancy if they did not take a lower grade role that had been offered to them?

Councillor Stewart offered to respond to this query external to the meeting once she had consulted Human Resources Officers.

Councillor Steve Masters referred to the points made around a lack of resilience. However, he was concerned that this could be a result of previous redundancies and cost savings, and therefore the issue of a lack of resilience was perhaps one of the Council’s own making.

He highlighted the importance of investing in training for officers to enable them to maintain their role or move up to another role, rather than being redeployed to a lower grade post with only 18 months’ salary protection. Posts were being created, but Councillor Masters felt that existing staff should be invested in so they could be redeployed and more done to avoid redundancies.

Councillor Stewart was not easily able to comment on past decisions as being relatively new as a Council Member, a point acknowledged by Councillor Masters. She did however give her understanding that there had been very few redundancies in recent years.

As already stated, resilience would be improved via the restructure and the new posts.

In terms of training, this was a topic she regularly discussed with officers. Officers should be helped to perform their role to the best of their ability and training was an important part of that.

Efforts would continue to be made to redeploy staff at risk of redundancy as soon as possible.

Councillor Dominic Boeck confirmed the point made by Councillor Stewart that there had been very few, if any, redundancies in this part of the Council in recent years. He added his view that it was the right time to take advantage of rapidly changing technology to improve service delivery.

Councillor Masters made the point that reduced resource could have come as a result of departing staff not being replaced rather than from redundancies.

RESOLVED that the redundancy payments detailed in the Part II report be authorised.

Other options considered:

Consideration was given to not proceeding with the restructure.  This option was ruled out as there was a clear business need to ensure that the new Department could function efficiently and effectively and the existing structure did not support this. 

Consideration was also given to delaying the implementation of the restructure.  This option was not considered viable due to the need to ensure that the new Department could function efficiently and effectively as noted above, and in order to meet current business need and even more so now in light of the impact and new learnings following Covid-19.