Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director, Resources and Commercial.

The Committee considered a report by the Employees’ Side on the issue of trade union facility time (Agenda Item 11) and a report of the Corporate Director, Resources and Commercial, on the same matter (Agenda Item 12).

One of the representatives of the Employees’ Side argued that the Council’s current proposals could be said to amount to indirect discrimination against Unison since they would impact disproportionately on those union members given their numbers compared to the other unions.  He also referred to the “Risk Management Implications” paragraph on Page 5 of the report of the Director, Resources and Commercial and suggested it envisaged “de-recognition” of trade unions by the Council. 

Councillor Ramchandani wished to make it clear that the Administration at the Council were committed to working with the trade unions, would never derecognise a union and importantly, had no intention of removing any facility time at all as part of the current discussions.  She explained that, with the appointment of a new director for HR issues, the opportunity had been taken to review a number of policies and procedures, and that this included reconsideration about whether the current facility time arrangements were effective and equitable. 

The Head of People and Organisational Development spoke the recognition agreement and wished to underline that the discussions on facility time were entirely separate to these.  Also, these discussions had, to date, been completely informal and no formal proposals had been advanced; the Council had no intention to reduce facility time, simply to review arrangements and determine whether they remained fit for purpose and fair to the different unions involved.

The GMB representative explained that she had raised the question of facility time with the Council since the GMB was not satisfied with its allocation of only 2.5 days.

A Member considered it puzzling that the report of the Corporate Director, Resources and Commercial referred to a need to clarify existing provisions of the facility time policy.  The Head of People and Organisational Development reported that the arrangements had become complicated and it was considered appropriate to carry out an audit/review to provide a firmer base for the way forward.

The Forum discussed the circumstances which had led to the current position and there was general concern that misunderstandings and a sense of mistrust had somehow developed when, in fact, there had been no particular proposals put forward for consideration.  A Member spoke from her experience as a union shop steward and confirmed that the number of members in the different unions had always been an important factor in allocating facility time; she also acknowledged the need for fair treatment of the different unions.  The Unison Regional Officer suggested that full-time union officers should have been involved in the discussions at an earlier stage.

The Head of People and Organisational Development apologised that concerns had been allowed to develop.  She explained that she had offered a written proposal and a discussion at the Corporate Joint Committee, but the matter had instead been placed of the agenda of this Forum meeting. 

Employee Side representatives questioned how the references to the apparent intention not to reduce facility time could be squared with the aim to reduce budgets.  The Head of People and Organisational Development explained that the current small budget underspend in this area could be used in this respect, but she had not wanted to commit this in advance of a review of the policy.

A Member regretted that misunderstandings and mistrust had arisen on this issue and suggested that it would be useful to learn lessons from the experience to inform the handling of such matters in future.  He proposed that the Portfolio Holder should engage with the unions informally and seek to find an effective accommodation in a spirit of cooperation.  The Unison Regional Officer welcomed the clarity and assurances on the issue and the commitment to consultation and negotiations with the trade unions; he also acknowledged the Council’s desire to be even-handed in the treatment of different unions. 

The Chair gave his view that an equitable allocation of facility time would be 8.5 days for Unison and 3.5 for the GMB, but he accepted that this proposal and others should be discussed between relevant Members, regional officers and local union representatives.  All those present agreed that the best course of action was for these informal discussion to take place and for a report to then be made to the Forum sub-group.

RESOLVED:  That the reports be noted and that relevant Members, regional officers and local union representatives discuss the issues informally following which a report would then be made to the Forum sub-group.