Agenda item

Report of the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer

There is a need to change the approach to hearing and deciding on appeals in employment relations matters in respect of officers of the council to reflect best practice and to reduce delay in dealing with the appeals process.

As a result there will be a need to update the current Officer Employment Procedure Rules set out in Part 8.4 of the Council’s Constitution and to amend other relevant clauses in the Constitution to reflect those changes.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to:

1.     Support the proposed changes to the appeals process in respect of employee relations matters and the resultant changes to the Council’s Constitution to reflect the changes.

2.     Delegate to the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer to draft the necessary changes to the Constitution for approval by Council.

TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL

1.     To approve amendments to the Officer Employment Procedure Rules in Part 8.4 of the Council’s Constitution and any consequential amendments to the Constitution.

The report was presented by the Monitoring Officer. There was a need to change the approach to hearing and deciding on appeals in employment relations matters in respect of officers of the council to reflect best practice and to reduce delays in dealing with the appeals process. As a result, there would be a need to update the current Officer Employment Procedure Rules set out in Part 8.4 of the Council’s Constitution and to amend other relevant clauses in the Constitution to reflect those changes.

Currently, on average the Council managed 200 employment relations cases per month. Cases were investigated and heard by managers within the organisation. Should an appeal be raised (there are approximately 2 appeals per month), this was currently heard by a Members’ panel made up of 3 members. It had been identified that arranging the Panels for Members to hear those appeals as a result of members’ availability led to delays in those matters being decided, resulting in increased risk to the council, lower employee morale and financial impact to the council.

It was proposed that an Appeals Sub Committee continue to hear and decide appeals against dismissals lodged by any Chief Officer of the council other than the Head of the Paid Service, the Section 151 Officer, the Monitoring Officer and where a separate process was set out in legislation and the Constitution was followed. It was proposed that for all other roles any employee’s investigation, hearing and appeals process would at each stage be conducted by an independent suitably trained officer with appropriate technical competence. Further, a delegation to the Monitoring Officer was requested to make changes to the Constitution corresponding to the recommendations made in this report.

Members made the following comments:

·       The perception of no Member input would not be appropriate. The Member was the impartial part of the Members Panel. There were highly skilled Officers to carry out employee matters.

·       Would it be more transparent to give the appellant a choice if they wanted a Panel hearing and they be advised that this may take longer but this would ensure a default position was in place. This was a good concept but would create a two-tier process. A clear process was essential.

·       In the current role of a Member, there was not always time for Members to be available to sit on Panels and sometimes Members did not have enough knowledge in employment law, but the trained Officers were very well trained.

·       Members had sat on many of these Panels and had not really noticed delays. The engagement with Members could be the reason that Members did not come forward and the delays could be a result of case preparation. Members were independent and gave the appellants reassurance that everything would be considered.

·       The delays could cause stress to the appellant. Would it help to have an independent trained person from another organisation? The Monitoring Officer commented that this would be an additional cost to the Council and could cause further delay.

·       It was useful to keep Members involved in the appeal panel process, even as a lay Member or an Officer from a different part of the organisation, trained with the necessary skills.

·       With so many cases per month, did the line managers, officers and managers require more training? The Monitoring Officer commented that with 5500 employees including schools, these covered every grievance and complaint, of which the levels could be very different and as change led to greater feelings of uncertainty and therefore more of these kinds of concerns.

·       Maybe Panels could be scheduled like meetings twice a month and cancelled if not required and formalised more with more training.

·       Members were not convinced that the recommendation was feasible.

The recommendation was read out and a vote was taken. No Members voted for the recommendations, six Members voted against the recommendations and one Member abstained from voting.

RESOLVED: that the Committee refused the recommendation so it would not be going forward to Council and the process to remain as it currently was.

Councillor Corkin left the meeting.