To consider the report and make recommendations.

Members considered the annual pay claim submitted by UNISON and GMB trade unions.

The Head of HR explained that the covering report provided modelling based on the trade union claim and the financial impact if it were accepted.

Ruth Smith of UNISON addressed the Panel. She explained that members of both her union and GMB had been consulted through a survey and face to face meetings, and their responses were reflected in the claim. The claim highlighted the economic climate and affordability issues. The borough was a particularly expense area in which to live, yet many employees were loyal. A good number of employees were also residents of the borough. The feedback received showed that it was clear that members were aware of the Pay Reward scheme and its intricacies, yet did not wish to submit a pay claim on this basis. Members had clearly expressed a wish for an across the board pay award for all staff, on the basis of fairness, to ensure all staff had an increase in their pay that enabled them to maintain their standard of living given the increase in prices. Recently released statistics showed that the cost of clothing and food in particular were set to continue to increase.

Councillor Bicknell requested details of the response rate of union members. Ms Smith explained that she did not have exact details, but that both unions had done their best to get a good response rate through a survey and face to face meetings at various locations.

Councillor Saunders commented that the Pay Reward scheme sought progressively to reward performance and contribution. For those who performed and contributed in the way the scheme identified, the scheme would have comfortably achieved rates of increase that would have shielded staff from the issues described. He asked why union members considered it more appropriate to redistribute to all rather than those who performed the best getting the most.

Ms Smith responded that a consistent message was that there were lots of aspects of the scheme that were not seen to be fair. The vast majority did not receive the larger pay increases yet they were of the view that they had worked hard and contributed. This reinforced the unfairness of the scheme. Greed was not necessarily what motivated people who worked in the public sector, therefore the claim reflected the desire to see fairness for colleagues.

Ms Smith left the meeting at 7.04pm

Councillor Saunders commented that the working group had been created to iron out the wrinkles with the Pay Reward scheme, and the two issues needed to be intertwined. He believed that the Pay Reward scheme based on performance and contribution should continue, but the council needed to more effectively deal with people who delivered but did not excel. The Chairman commented that the balance between Reward and Award needed to be addressed.

Councillor Bicknell highlighted that the borough paid all employees higher than the National Living Wage (NLW). It appeared that because of geographical location the trade unions believed that the borough should pay higher than the NLW. The unions had not considered the financial impact of a 5% increase across the board, and could not provide data on response rates.

The Managing Director commented that the Panel at previous meetings had talked about how staff had highlighted the need for a balance between award and reward. As an organisation the borough was committed to the reward aspect. However, particularly with the upcoming changes and challenges to the organisation, there was a need to refocus the message to highlight that staff were an asset to the organisation. The number of staff on capability procedures was very low, but there was a gap between the majority and those who excelled.

Councillor Jones commented that the claim was not just because of location but the higher cost of living in the borough. She highlighted the difficulties schools had in recruiting staff. Councillor Bicknell commented that the cost of living was the biggest differentiator and whatever the pay scales this ongoing problem would not be surmounted. Councillor Dr Evans highlighted the psychological element alluded to by Ms Smith, that money was not the only motivator and the effect on productivity particularly at times of change. It would be psychologically right to show staff that Members were taking into account the pressures they were under.

Councillor Saunders commented that for a number of years the Panel had sought to ensure the amount of money awarded was directed at the lower paid to ‘pull the tail up’. More recently the emphasis had shifted to allocation in response to performance and contribution. He suspected a 5% increase costing £2m would be indigestible to council tax payers. Whatever the size of the pot it would be appropriate to seek to allocate in a way that most effectively responded to a variety of inputs. The Chairman commented that this reflected discussions in the working group. Councillor Dr Evans highlighted the need to take into account the impact of loss of staff depending on the type of award, and the consequent cost of agency staff. Councillor Carroll commented that proportionality as you moved up an down the curve and received reward based on performance was the key. Equality of outcome was not the answer; there was a need to continue incentivising performance. Councillor Bicknell commented that it was a journey over time. It would be important to ‘keep the tail up’ therefore the curve would need to flatten to some extent.

Members therefore agreed to request HR to undertake modelling in relation to flattening the curve and that the wording of recommendation ii be amended accordingly.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Employment Panel:

i. Review the information supplied in this report and appendices as part of the consideration of the annual pay review for eligible staff for 2016/17.

ii. Request HR to explore modelling around the flattening of the curve and how this would look at different levels and the full integration with the ongoing outcomes of the working group, to be brought back to the Panel in November 2016.

iii. Inform the trade unions of the pay award and pay reward decision in

February 2017, after the February Cabinet meeting.