To consider the above report

Members considered the results of the 2017 pay reward process. Members noted that, for the first time in some years, the council had agreed to give both a Pay Award and Pay Reward. All staff had received a 0.8% Pay Award and budget had been made available for Pay Reward, although this figure had been less than in previous years because of the Pay Award.

Members commended officers on the fact that all staff had a completed appraisal by 31 March 2017.

The Head of HR confirmed that 11 appraisal score reviews were requested, with three being upheld. Less appeals were made than the previous year, and less were upheld. Staff were now more used to the system although there had been some feedback that the scheme was still complicated, particularly for staff at the top of a grade. Members had approved a number of changes to the scheme for the following year, to address such issues. Feedback had also been received that some staff were disappointed that a smaller amount was available for Pay Reward than in previous years.

Councillor Saunders highlighted that that some 10% of employees received an outstanding score and had been rewarded with an increase (unrelated to promotion) of just less than 2.2%. In excess of one third who had been given an excellent rating received a total increase just short of 1.5%; this was also a very credible figure in the context of public sector pay awards across the UK. Councillor Saunders suggested a table showing the base figure of 0.8% and increments associated with good/excellent/outstanding scores, alongside any increases associated with promotions or grade changes, would be useful so that the average increase in employee salary was clear. He expected that a person outside the council would believe no one had received more than 1%.

The Head of HR confirmed that HR reviewed each of the cases relating to the 30 staff deemed as ‘Requiring Improvement’ as at 31 March 2017. Approximately half had already moved out of the category; others had six month improvement plans in place. He would be able to circulate a table giving further details, although this would likely be in Part II due to the small cohort. Councillor Quick suggested figures by directorate would be useful in this respect. Councillor Brimacombe commented that he felt the term ‘Requires Improvement’ could be misleading as even those at good, excellent or outstanding would have areas to improve. The Head of HR explained that the term ‘Requires Improvement’ linked to Ofsted and was a recognised term.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that more than half were deemed good/excellent/outstanding, which was commendable, but cautioned about grade inflation. Some schemes were normative: Individuals were graded against others, so there was never more than 10% in the top grade. The Head of HR confirmed that safeguards were in place including moderation of objectives undertaken by service leaders and moderation of scores at Directorate and CMT level.

Councillor Bicknell asked if there were any environmental factors that were affecting officers’ ability to perform? Details about department and grade would be needed to ensure Members had the full picture. The Head of HR commented that he could draw out any lessons learned from the individual cases for the next paper. He commented that someone was deemed ‘Requiring Improvement’ as soon as they dropped below 78 points. A number of the individuals concerned were very close to 78 so, with an improvement plan in place, quickly moved out of the category.

Councillor E. Wilson commented that the 0.8% Pay Award was good news; many private firms could not afford to give pay rises at the moment. He asked whether being graded as ‘outstanding’ provided motivation and helped to retain staff.  The Head of HR responded that the outstanding results were across a variety of grades. The Pay Award had been welcomed by staff, along with a reward scheme that recognised performance. Some feedback from those receiving outstanding scores had related to the limited funding available compared to previous years.

Councillor Saunders commented that the analysis previously requested by Councillor Quick could be found in the appendix to the Part II report the Panel had received at a previous meeting. The only significant bias he could identify was that those scoring at the lower end tended to be older.

The Head of HR agreed to circulate the statistics in relation to length of service.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Employment Panelnotes the report.