Agenda item

The report is an information only report for the purposes of updating on four aspects of HR activity for 2021/2022 Q1 and Q2 which includes Recruitment, Appraisals and Performance Management, Training, and Casework. This report is provided at request of members of the Personnel Committee by way of an update.

The HR Service Lead introduced the report (Agenda Item 5).

Members made the following comments and observations:-

Appraisals

It was queried why employees were not set specific timeframes to complete appraisals.

The HR Service Lead reported that the report reflected the current position and that once the new behaviour framework was developed there would be a full review of the appraisal system and that the lack of deadlines would be rectified under the new process.

It was suggested that managers should also be trained to pick up any issues of concern outside the appraisal process.

The HR Service Lead confirmed that the appraisal process was being reviewed and reformed in its totality and would include far greater training for managers.

Attention was drawn to the appraisal data for the ICT department and it was commented that the new system needed to be robust with managers encouraged to prioritise appraisals.

It was noted that the new Chief Executive was fully supportive of the review of the appraisal system and it was anticipated that there would be significant pressure from senior management to improve results.

In response to a suggestion that appraisals should include an indication as to the performance of an employee, the HR Service Lead commented that an appropriate measure and standard was being developed.

In response to a suggestion that sight of the appraisal framework would be useful when reviewing the data, the HR Service Lead agreed to provide a link to the current appraisal system. It was reported that the new system would not be ready to share until late spring/early summer.

Casework

It was suggested and agreed that benchmarking should be against both similar private sector industries aswell as against the public sector. However it was noted that this would need to be undertaken in a holistic manner rather than just looking at the straight data.

It was commented that if the 7.15 days recorded under section 6.7 could be maintained then it would be a significant improvement.

It was suggested that the Employment Tribunal data should also detail whether the cases were still open, the average length of time taken to deal with, and the cost to the council.

In response, the HR Service Lead agreed to take advice from the Monitoring Officer, due to the GDPR implications of publishing such information. It was clarified that the cases within the report were all live cases, and that the council historically had not been taken to tribunal.

It was queried why 2 cases which had commenced in 2019 were still outstanding, and suggested that by having a KPI detailing average length of time to resolution, would focus officers to solve cases quicker.

The HR Service Lead agreed to report back to the committee following discussions with the Monitoring Officer.

It was suggested and agreed that the Portfolio Holder for Internal Governance, Leisure and Culture should review and ensure that the cases were being expedited with sufficient speed.

Staff Absence

It was queried whether initiatives such as Timelord2 were contributing to the stress suffered by members of staff.

The HR Service Lead commented that this had not been investigated specifically, but that staff survey data indicated that staff wellbeing was directly impacted by any general change project, and so was likely to be impacted by Timelord2. However it was clarified that whilst wellbeing may be impacted it was not necessarily stress related.  

It was suggested that a standard return to work question for an employee suffering with stress, should be whether the stress was work related. This was felt to be particularly important given the number of different pressures impacting people during the pandemic, and the fact that daily interaction with team members may have significantly reduced, making identification of such issues harder to recognise.

Training

It was noted that mandatory training occurred on a 3 year cycle, and consequently numbers would fluctuate accordingly. It was further explained that some training had needed to be reduced due to external trainers refusing to provide training remotely.

In relation to a request for the percentage of mandatory training being missed, the HR Service Lead clarified that the information was published quarterly as part of the KPI requirements and so could be readily shared.

It was reported that a Training Needs Analysis survey had recently been undertaken to identify staff training requirements.

It was suggested that the emphasis should be on training that staff ‘need’ rather than ‘want’.

It was commented that emphasis shouldn’t just be on attending training courses but also on the effectiveness of that training and calibre of internal trainer.

The HR Service Lead clarified that feedback was requested from all staff attending a training session, however this could potentially be improved upon.

In response to a query as to why training figures remained lower than the position during 2018/19, the HR Manager suggested that there had been mandatory GDPR training for every member of staff during that period. 

Retention

The HR Manager reported that the current KPI for turnover was less than 14% and that this was benchmarked against the LGA form. However it was also acknowledged that there was a desire to increase diversity and equality numbers and consequently a balance to be made. 

It was clarified that figures related only to employees and wouldn’t include contractor figures. It was noted that the commissioning department was responsible for contractors, and the HR Manager agreed to investigate the possibility of obtaining comparable retention data for contractors.

Recruitment

Cllr Brooks offered to provide some advice to the HR department, given his significant experience and 38 years working within the recruitment sector. The Portfolio Holder for Internal Governance, Culture and Leisure welcomed Cllr Brooks’ offer.

It was noted that in relation to page 29 of the report approximately one third of recruitment was ‘off-contract’ and consequently not going through managed service provider. This was felt to be of potential impact to the rebate.

The HR Manager clarified that initially most job vacancies would be filled by direct recruitment. Comensura would be utilised in instances requiring immediate recruitment or where direct recruitment had failed. It was reported that other agencies would then be consulted where Commensura had been unsuccessful.  

Cllr Brooks requested sight of the service level agreement and agreed to discuss that and the off contract spend with the HR team. He commented that he was aghast at the fact that the commissioning department were responsible for managing the Commensura contract. It was suggested that HR as the service users should be responsible for the contract.

It was suggested that the WBC job application website required some work. Job descriptions were felt to be too wordy. More visuals were suggested and improvements in relation to a welcome from the Leader of the Council or Chief Executive suggested.

In response to a query the HR Manager clarified that the website allowed for direct applicant tracking.

It was suggested that Google analytics would provide further extensive information in relation to candidates looking at the website.

The HR Service Lead agreed to include mandatory training details within forthcoming reports and suggested bringing the report back to committee on a six monthly basis.

RESOLVED:the Committee note the report.