To consider the above report

Members considered an amendment to the council’s grievance procedure. The Head of HR explained that the procedure currently had three stages.  An employee who remained dissatisfied with the outcome of their grievance at stages one and two was able to have their grievance heard at stage three by the Member Employment Appeal Panel (EAP).  The report recommended shortening the current procedure and was in accordance with the ACAS code. Since the beginning of 2016 only 3 of the 14 grievances had been taken to the EAP level and of these all three had not been upheld. The decision reached by officers was supported by Members. The proposal meant that Members would only hear grievance appeals for members of the senior leadership team.

The Chairman commented that she was supportive of removing the Member element which was inefficient, dragged the process out and did not add a lot of benefit. Member involvement for grievances by senior officers was appropriate, for example for the Managing Director this could go the Lead Member for decision and the Leader for appeal.

Councillor Saunders commented that this presented a dilemma.  He had sat on panels and was conscious of the important role played by Members in considering the evidence and coming to a balanced judgement. The second element was the desire for the employee to feel they had a line of appeal to people perceived to be unencumbered by the organisational structure.  If the policy was amended as proposed, he struggled to see that the employee would feel their manager and the other managers above them would have the necessary independence and objectivity they would expect and deserve.

The Chairman commented that outside the public sector it would be unusual to find that someone outside the organisation in question would be involved in making the decision. The process could be improved by allowing the appeal to be made to HR, who would then appoint an appropriate investigator and decision maker at least one grade above and in another department. Any appeal would be to an individual in another department.

Councillor Saunders commented that he appreciated that a complicated but deliverable set of Chinese walls could be put in place to seek to ensure the party taking the initial judgement had no operational responsibility for the area in question, but as you went up the organisation, the pyramid tightened. Additionally, the council promoted collaboration and co-operation between teams therefore it was difficult to ask someone to be independent for the purposes of an investigation yet work collaboratively at other time. The only alternative was some sort of Member involvement in the appeal process.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that most organisations did not use independent people because they did not have the option. The council was lucky to have independent people embedded and should see this as a virtue. The principle of an independent person was an effective check and balance. The council should hold itself to a higher standard and have a more robust system. 

Councillor Jones commented that the council was much smaller now than a few years ago, so officers were more likely to know each other, which would make it more difficult to identify an individual who would be seen as independent. The necessary degree of separation did not now exist.

Councillor Bicknell commented that in his view councillors were not independent, many were involved in service areas. The proposal was only to remove the grievance aspect; Members would continue to consider disciplinary appeals.

Councillor Carroll supported the continuation of Member involvement. He felt that it was odd to have a process where a grievance was submitted to a line manager, this should go to HR. However, despite best efforts, some people would still believe the HR department would work for the benefit of the organisation not the employee. In other organisations the HR reporting line was taken away from the operational structure to try to overcome this perception. Where it was done well, a process would include a mechanism for independent review, for example consultants.

The Head of HR explained that the Shared Audit and Investigation team was used to undertake investigations. Complex investigations or for more senior individuals would involve independent investigators.  The main benefit of the proposal in the report was the reduction in the timescale to get a final decision. The current process allowed 20 working days for an appeal to be heard; this extended process could be uncomfortable for the employee. The Chairman commented that a significant amount of officer time was involved in putting the appeal together.

Councillor Saunders commented that he felt it would be inappropriate to remove Member involvement. However he accepted the current process represented a level of bureaucracy that was out of proportion with the benefit provided. He therefore suggested that officers be requested to bring a report to a future Panel meeting to include options that achieved the objective inspired by the report but maintained a meaningful role for Members.

Councillor Quick commented that the council should seek to be one of the best employees in the area. It was important that grievances were dealt with in a satisfactory manner. If the third level of Member involvement was chopped out this could be perceived as the council trying to gag an employee’s grievance and to stop them having contact with Members.

The Head of HR confirmed that the trade unions had not as yet fed back in relation to the report.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Employment Panel requests an options paper be presented to the October 2017 meeting of the Panel on amendments to the grievance procedure.