Minutes:
The Forum heard a report from an Employee side representative on the possible restructure of Housing Needs, which was deemed to be pre-empted by Housing Needs Managers in order to benefit certain employees in advance of the restructure, with two managers at G11 having their jobs re-evaluated to scale MG1 in 2019. The submission at agenda item 10 was considered in conjunction with the response report from the Interim Director of HR at agenda item 11.
A Management response was then received, stating that evaluations were in line with the Council’s HR policy and advising that re-evaluations were carried out due to operational requirements. The Forum was reminded that no restructure was being planned in Housing Needs in the foreseeable future but some re-alignments might take place. The Forum was also informed that according to Council’s HR policies there was no requirement for a restructure in order for a job evaluation request to be triggered. It was added that the suggested outcome would be for Housing Needs to investigate the matter further and demonstrate how the job evaluation policy had been complied with.
An Employee side representative asked when the Council formally notified Trade Unions about the restructuring, pointing out that communication with Harrow UNISON had been limited to a single email received three weeks ago. In response, the Forum was assured that consultation with the Unions was carried out in time of the previous housing re-organisation.
The Forum heard that an external peer review would be carried out as required by the Portfolio Holder for Housing, which would include full consultation. Staff had been notified on 14 January 2020 and the Council intended to meet with the Trade Unions on 20 February 2020 as part of the process.
In response to questions on the cost of the review, an officer advised that an exact estimate could not be provided at present but assured the Forum that the intention was to keep costs to a minimum. Forum members were informed that the external body would likely to be the same as the one previously used by the Council, which was accredited and supported by central government, although other equally suitable options were available.
The Divisional Director for Housing Services re-iterated that there were no plans to restructure Housing Needs. A peer review, however, was necessary and as part of this the Council would engage with the Trade Unions. There were no specific saving targets attached to the service review - instead the focus was primarily on service requirements and Council homelessness and rough sleeping objectives being met. The operational requirement was not driven by flexible retirement and the re-evaluations of the two posts were on permanent basis. However, the Council was happy to investigate the Union’s concerns further.
A UNISON representative challenged the response, stating that evaluations were being done to cover the post of personal retirement and that it was not acceptable for the Council to agree flexible retirement at a cost to the business. The Forum was also reminded of the requirement to submit a business case to support such decision which was not completed and as a result due process was not followed. Furthermore, the Council had failed to identify any savings as a result of the proposed restructure. It was pointed out that Harrow UNISON had not received any paperwork and as a result it was felt that the outcome of restructure was not clear.
A further point was raised by an Employee side representative who added that staff at the Council’s Depot had not had any job re-evaluations carried out despite a number of requests being submitted and reminded the Council that policy should be applied fairly and equally to all Council employees. Furthermore, representatives questioned what duties had been identified and added to justify the need for re-evaluation. The Interim Head of HR, Resources and Commercial acknowledged the comment but explained that requests for job re-evaluation may not necessarily result in one. It was further explained that there had been an increase in duties and a significant effort on behalf of the service was required to cover the post in the interim. Officers undertook to share further details on those duties with Trade Unions following the ECF meeting.
A Council side representative expressed concerns over the possibility of an individual on flexible retirement benefiting financially from the process and that it appeared that the entire system needed a comprehensive review. In response, it was explained that the above mentioned flexible retirement was not a driver for the subsequent job revaluations. Instead, it was confirmed that a part time post had been vacant for a period of time, and due to it not being filled in yet, staff had had to act up to cover the work.
The Chair acknowledged that the comments made by both Employee and Council side representatives throughout the discussion reflected the overall disappointment on the lack of proper consultation. He continued by saying that the current issue demonstrated the implications of not following due process and that the need for significant changes had to be recognised.
RESOLVED: That the report and the comments made in the preamble above be noted.