ITEM CA9 CABINET – 20 FEBRUARY 2007 REVISED REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES Report by Head of Human Resources & Organisational Development and Director for Children, Young People & Families. Introduction 1. At the meeting on 17 October 2006, the Cabinet approved a limited number of changes to the Council’s policies on redundancy compensation and premature retirement for teachers following the implementation of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. 2. On 20 January 2007 the Cabinet also approved a revised Retirement Policy for Green Book employees, the Teachers’ Retirement Policy and Premature Retirement Scheme and the Redundancy Procedures for Non-School Employees. 3. Further consultations have taken place with the Cabinet Member for Change Management and the Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement, relevant trade unions and the Schools’ Forum. A draft Redundancy Procedure for School Employees is now put forward for agreement by the Cabinet, subject to comments from Teachers Joint Committee on 22 February 2007. 4. Further amendments to the Retirement Policies will be required to incorporate proposed changes to the national pension schemes and to allow the endorsement of a policy on flexible retirement. Proposed Changes to the Redundancy Procedure for Schools 5.
Copies of the current policies
and procedures are available on request from County Human Resources and
also the Human Resources and Workforce Development Team in the Children,
Young People & Families directorate. 6. It is proposed that existing policies and procedures will apply to cases where estimates of benefits have already been given and the termination of employment date is on or before 31 March 2007. The operation of the policy will be formally reviewed in consultation with the teachers’ professional associations and with UNISON after one year. 7. The proposed revised Redundancy procedure is attached at Annex 1 (download as .doc file). There are two key changes to the Procedure. The first relates to the criteria for the selection of redundant employees. These have been strengthened to put the emphasis on objective, evidence-based reasons such as skills, qualifications, and experience. This aims to avoid selection based primarily on length of service and to introduce elements into the selection process which will impact positively on service delivery by enabling schools to retain staff with essential skills. Schools will, however, need to use caution when applying the chosen selection criteria fairly and without discrimination. It is intended to produce an example skills audit check for schools as an annex to the policy. There are also changes to where some of the costs fall which result from redundancies in schools. Concerns Expressed during Consultations8. Teachers’ unions have expressed serious concerns about the changes to the selection criteria for redundancy. A summary of these concerns is set out below: (a) Although Governing Bodies have always had the power to determine the redundancy selection criteria to be applied in schools the accepted and most commonly used criteria of length of service has worked successfully over a number of years and has been accepted by all sides. It is simple and not contentious; it does not reflect detrimentally on those selected and it is less open to potential manipulation by management. However, it also needs to be noted that during this period there have been hardly any compulsory redundancies in schools at all. (b) Unions fear that Governing Bodies will not implement more complex selection criteria fairly and that this will generate increased work for union representatives and open up the possibility of increased referrals to Employment Tribunals. This will be bad for employee relations and would reflect poorly on Oxfordshire’s reputation as a fair employer. The degree of control over schools and the time available to spend advising schools is lower than for non-school groups and this increases the need to have simple and transparent procedures. (c) In particular, teachers unions are concerned that the possible inclusion of criteria such as disciplinary or attendance record are contentious matters which should be dealt with properly through the dedicated agreed procedures. In addition, selection for redundancy through a procedure which included these matters could harm the prospects for re-employment of redundant teachers in the future. 9. The revised Procedure has been discussed with UNISON in respect of non-teaching employees in schools. UNISON has expressed no significant concerns about the proposed Procedure. 10. The proposed new procedures, including the changes to the funding arrangements for the costs of redundancy in schools, were discussed by the Schools Forum on 18 January 2007. The Forum expressed concern at several aspects of the redundancy proposals. These are set out in the unconfirmed notes of the meeting as follows: “The new model policy for redundancy for school staff was the subject of consultation with a view to Cabinet consideration on 16 February. It was noted that compulsory redundancies had, historically at least, been very rare. An agreed policy was essential for consistency in schools, to have none would result in great confusion. With regard to schools having to pay for redundancy costs where they were not in an overall budget deficit situation but using redundancy to deal with curriculum change, there were concerns that the proposed model might encourage schools to move towards deficit budgets so that they did not have to meet the costs. This would not help them to achieve the curriculum changes which would be required in the coming years. There was much discussion about the use of selection criteria for redundancy and the proposed move from the criterion of ‘shortest service’ which, while it was unambiguous, was now considered by many to be too crude and, frequently, inappropriate. No other authorities were believed to be using it as the single or main criterion. It was pointed out that there would be nothing to stop a governing body from using it as a criterion if, in a particular set of circumstances, it appeared to be appropriate. The Forum’s view was that shortest service should be the preferred criterion. It was felt that governing bodies need very clear and easily available advice about how criteria might be determined and about the consequences of not following the proper procedures. The Forum had concerns about some wording and the cost. There were likely to be particular issues for secondary schools over the next 5 years due to the staffing consequences of changing curriculum. The Chair of the Forum undertook to write a letter to Cabinet Members setting out its concerns more fully.” Response to Concerns 11. The proposed redundancy selection criteria are in line with those cited in the Arbitration and Conciliation Advice Service (ACAS) booklet on Redundancy Handling as potential criteria for fair selection. ACAS stresses, however, that the criteria must be applied consistently and objectively. 12. A survey has been undertaken of redundancy selection criteria used in other local authorities. A summary of the survey’s findings is attached at Annex 2 (download as .doc file). This shows that many other authorities recommended a wider range of selection criteria for their schools to use, including those proposed. Further research has shown that no significant increase in the number of referrals to Employment Tribunals has resulted. 13. The points raised by teachers’ unions relating to the most contentious matters relating to disciplinary and attendance records have been acknowledged. The Council already has model procedures in place to deal with these matters. As a result these criteria have been removed from the draft procedure. This does mean that the Redundancy Procedure for School Employees will not entirely mirror the non-School procedure. However, this difference can be justified as a reflection of the reduced degree of control and intervention in the schools management relationships. UNISON have accepted this difference on these grounds since the option to refer disagreements on selection criteria to the County Human Resources Manager for resolution which was added to the Non-Schools Procedure is not workable in the case of schools. Also, a sentence has been added to remind schools that care has to be taken to avoid criteria which could constitute a judgement on a employee’s professional capability or could prejudice their future employment prospects. 14. The outcome of further discussions at Informal Teachers’ Joint Committee on 1 February will be reported at the Cabinet meeting. Any final adjustments can be discussed and incorporated into the Procedure to be put to formal Teachers’ Joint Committee on 22 February for confirmation and agreement. Should agreement still fail to be reached at this meeting, this will be reported back to the Cabinet. 15. The Schools Forum is concerned about the costs of some redundancies falling on schools. However, the financial burden of all redundancy payments falling on the Council is no longer sustainable and it is now seen as appropriate that a greater proportion of the costs should be met by schools themselves, particularly where they are not in deficit and in a financial position to do so. With regard to the criteria for selection, a governing body is still able to decide that length of service is the most appropriate selection criterion following consultations with the unions. If a letter is received setting out the Forum’s concerns, this will be made available to the Cabinet. Financial and Staff Implications 16. The proposed new redundancy policy for school staff, together with the revised retirement policy agreed by Cabinet in January 2007, is likely to lead to an overall reduction in the number of redundancies in schools. Under the new policy, secondary schools in particular will be encouraged to look to a variety of ways of managing changes in staff deployment both through using their financial freedoms to pay severance payments and meet redundancy costs, as well as the flexibilities in the new teachers’ pensions regulations such as flexible retirement and actuarially reduced benefits. In the financial year 2006-07, there have been 25 teacher redundancies and 16 green book staff redundancies in Oxfordshire schools. These 41 redundancies have cost the Council £696k in one-off payments this year and will cost a further £68k in ongoing pension payments in 2007-08 and beyond. If the new redundancy policy is adopted by Cabinet, future costs could be reduced significantly from 2007-08 onwards - depending on the new pattern of redundancies that emerges. 17. Adoption of the new policy will not only lead to a probable drop in the overall number of redundancies, but also to a reduction in the proportion of redundancies which are voluntary (at the moment virtually 100% of all redundancies for both school and central staff are agreed on this basis). This is because, given the effects of the new age discrimination legislation and the consequent revised early retirement policies agreed by Cabinet in January 2007, the financial incentives for staff to leave a post voluntarily may not be so great as they were previously. Also, any increase in compulsory redundancies is likely to be more contentious and a matter of concern for staff and unions. RECOMMENDATIONS18. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to: (a) agree that the existing procedure will be applied to cases where estimates of benefits have been given and the termination of employment date is on or before 31 March 2007; and (b) approve the attached Redundancy Policy for School Employees subject to comments from the Teacher’s Joint Committee on 22 February 2007. STEVE MUNN KEITH BARTLEY Background papers: Current Redundancy Procedure for Teachers and Redundancy Procedure for Non-School Green Book Employees Contact Officers: Sue Corrigan, County Human Resources Manager, Tel 01865 810280 Rick Harmes, Head of Strategy and Performance, Tel 01865 810626 February
2007
|