Agenda item

Report of the Divisional Director, Human Resources and Development and Shared Services

The Forum received the report of the Divisional Director, HR and Shared Services, which was a follow-up to the equalities employment data provided to the Forum in October 2013, and which set out analysis of that data together with an action plan to address the priority issues.

The Organisational Development Manager outlined the key findings, including the following:

·                    under-representation of certain, defined categories among the workforce, as compared with the local demographic;

·                    under-representation of certain, defined categories within higher pay bands;

·                    over-representation of BAME staff undergoing conduct procedures;

·                    over-representation of staff with disabilities undergoing conduct procedures;

·                    the accuracy and completeness of data collected, and in comparison with different surveys;

·                    variations in the proportion of appointments from certain, defined categories compared to their proportion of applications;

·                    variations in the proportion of successful requests for redeployment.

In response to queries about staff undergoing conduct procedures, the Organisational Development Manager confirmed that any staff who had not reached the top tier of their pay grade would suffer financial detriment as a result of receiving warnings.  A Member queried whether the number of warnings could include multiple warnings for an individual, or represented separate instances, but it was not possible to determine this from the figures.  The Organisational Development Manager noted that the number of formal warnings in the year (20) across a workforce of 5.125 employees was not a significant number.  Nevertheless the trend over a number of years was that  the greater proportion of warnings relate to BAME staff.  The Chair gave his view that this greater proportion of BAME staff within this category was a matter of concern and should be investigated.

The Forum then considered issues in relation to training and asked for clarification as to what was included in the definition, and whether the figures quoted represented a true picture and gave genuine cause for concern.  Noting that e-learning was not included, the Chair suggested that all training statistics should be captured, and that the Employment Sub-Group should consider the definition of training.

An officer commented that key priorities had been integrated within a single Corporate Plan, and that many activities would address multiple issues, for instance, actions in respect of recruitment could improve the under-representation of more than one group.  However, she advised that current low levels of recruitment would limit the scope for improvement.  The Chair suggested that HR officers consider the timelines for actions and prioritise tasks in line with key priorities.

The Forum also considered the proportion of staff with disabilities among the numbers undergoing capability procedures, and whether sufficient support was in place for the individuals concerned.  It was noted that disability figures were likely to increase with an ageing workforce, although this alone did not explain the discrepancy between disclosure of disability at recruitment stage and figures captured as a result of different procedures or surveys.

The Forum discussed possible reasons for the discrepancies in reporting disabilities, and the conflicting needs of the organisation to be aware and pro?active when addressing disability issues, and the individual in choosing to protect their privacy.  It was accepted that managers could not implement reasonable adjustments if they were unaware that a disability existed.  The Chair concluded that policies should be re-visited if it was clear that there were problems, and asked for input from both officers and Employees’ Side representatives in order to get a clear understanding of the issues.

The Forum considered the Action Plan, and in particular the following points:

·        timetables for review of policies and procedures and the need to synchronise the work on specific equalities actions with this work;

·        timescales for actions and the achievability of these

·        incorporating a commentary and including milestones and RAG ratings for each action;

·        the frequency and quality of departmental equality group meetings.

In response to a comment by employee representatives the Organisational Development Manager informed the Forum that the appraisal system was being modified, with a view to replace the IPAD scheme with a process that would be valued by the organisation and employees.  There was no intention to include performance related pay in any new scheme.  In response to an Employees’ Side query on the link between appraisal, capability and incremental progression, she replied that this would be considered in the review taking place of both the Capability procedure and the application of incremental progression in context of warnings.

Finally, the Forum discussed the low take-up of equalities induction training, what it comprised, and realistic timescales for its completion, given that many staff did not have access to e-learning components.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.