Agenda item

Report from the Harrow Unison LG Branch.

A Unison representative introduced the issues of concern to the union, in particular, the apparent establishment of management posts/grades at odds with the approved structure and the escalation of costs associated with the reorganisation, particularly the money spent on “consultants” as part of the exercise.  It was alleged that there was no “evidence base” to the management response to these concerns and that staff displaced by the reorganisation had been retained on unaltered grades and that some of those appointed had “failed” their interviews. 

The Divisional Director, Environment and Culture gave the background to the reorganisation, including consultation with staff representatives via the departmental joint committee in April 2017.  As a result of the reorganisation, no member of staff had been displaced or had suffered detriment.  The Council’s policy was to manage these restructurings so as to minimise compulsory redundancies, and the appropriate recruitment procedures had been followed. 

A Unison representative asked a number of questions as follows:

a)            Did the staff appointed to MG1 posts go through the same recruitment process, and was the same matrix apply to external candidates, as those staff who were displaced from posts? 

b)            What were the overall costs of the new structure compared to previous estimates?

c)            Since 17 February 2017, what have been the costs of the salaries of those staff who did not apply for jobs in the new structure and have continued to receive a salary?

d)            With respect to the Assistant Manager posts in the Environment and Community Services reorganisation, how do the 7 posts now filled compare to the 6 posts agreed in the restructuring and what is proposed for the two staff at that tier who did not apply for the new posts? 

e)            How had it been decided to recruit to one of the Civic Amenity manager roles and not two?

f)             How should Unison deal with the requirement under Paragraph 2.3 of the Code of Conduct for Employees to report “failure in service standards”?

g)            What had been the total cost of consultants working in relation to this reorganisation?

h)           How had the service progressed, given that there had been problems with the launch of the food waste service?

i)             How was it is the case that there were now two identical roles in the new structure with two different salaries? 

The Divisional Director, Environment and Culture gave the following responses:

a)            The detail of the recruitment processes would be obtained and shared with members of the Forum.

b)            The overall costs were some £200,000 more than the costs of the original structure; the structure had been agreed with the trade union and was designed to secure a service which would be fit for purpose for the next five years at least.

c)            The member of staff concerned had been subject to a medical condition and had only returned to work recently.

d)            There was a need to review the position and clarify the reasons for the Assistant Manager arrangements.

e)            As mentioned in the management response in the report, there had been no change to the structure without staff consultation.  One of the posts had been filled while the other was being reviewed, as required by the Recruitment and Selection Procedure in these circumstances.  An agency member of staff had been engaged in the interim to cover the requirements of the operating licence. 

f)             The appropriate recourse was to report alleged service failure to the relevant manager or indeed to the Divisional Director.

g)            Information on the total cost of consultants used to advise and cover posts as part of the reorganisation, would be circulated to members of the Forum.

h)           The service had secured a number of achievements including improvements to street cleansing and recycling, and an improved financial position.  The work continued with a focus on a 3 to 5-year programme. The service would have to address the budget saving requirements set by the Council. 

i)             Clarification would be provided to members of the Forum about the relevant job descriptions and specifications.

The Forum discussed the circumstances of the appointment to 7 Assistant Manager posts compared to the 6 posts originally agreed in the restructuring.  With the continued employment of two other managers who had not applied for the new posts, the situation was difficult to understand.  The Divisional Director explained that there were two staff who were being considered under the Council’s arrangements for redeployment or potential redundancy; it was hoped that their positions would be resolved before the end of the year.  The budget for the service was being reviewed and in this context, the Assistant Manager arrangements would be considered further to ensure that they were effective.

At this point of the meeting (8.20 pm) the Forum resolved that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for following part of the consideration of this item on the grounds that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

A Unison representative referred to the information provided about the rates of pay for LGV2 drivers which he said demonstrated that Harrow rates were below the national average.  He set this in the context of the reorganisation costing £200,000 more than the original structure and the costly use of agency staff, and queried how the Divisional Director was intending to address the situation.  The Divisional Director advised that the rates of pay had been compared with other London Boroughs and this had revealed that Harrow was the highest payer wit the exception of Barnet.  He argued that Harrow had a relatively low level of staff turnover in the service, though he accepted that it was difficult to retain agency staff given competition from other employers.

The Unison representative argued that the information available in the committee papers and provided by the Council’s own recruitment company, contradicted the position described by the Divisional Director.  He referred to the information in the Unison report on the agenda which explained the shortage of drivers in the sector, and he also stated that the drivers for the Council’s waste collection vehicles were LGV1 class drivers.  The Divisional Director agreed to share the information available to him about comparisons of rates of pay with other London Boroughs with members of the Forum.  It was also agreed that London Councils be asked whether they had conducted any survey of London Borough rates of pay for LGV2 drivers. 

At this point in the meeting (8.35 pm), the Forum resolved to re-admit the press and public to the meeting as discussion of the exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, had been completed.