Agenda item
Alternative Models of Employee Appeals Sub-Committee
- Meeting of General Purposes Committee, Tuesday, 23rd February, 2021 5.30 p.m. (Item 4.4)
- View the background to item 4.4
Minutes:
Amanda Harcus, Divisional Director of HR, introduced the report by explaining that the report was asking Members to change the constitutional arrangements for the Employee Appeals Committee to refer dismissal appeals to an Officer panel as set out in the report.
Ms Harcus highlighted the increasing importance that was needed to be given to performance management and to individual senior officers taking accountability for their actions and in this regard it was being suggested that senior officers should be expected to hear final appeals in all staffing matters and take account of their decision-making and that includes explaining that rationale for either overturning a dismissal or for upholding a dismissal in full. It was noted that the current practise was for elected members to consider appeals for staff dismissals and this was thought to sometimes create a misperceptionbetween the role of members and role of officers.
It was noted that there were different practises across the London boroughs and, LBTH was only one of 13 boroughs that continues to have Members involved in dismissal appeals, whereas 20 other boroughs had removed Members from their appeal processes.
Ms Harcus briefly explained alternative models for the appeals process; Senior Management Panels, where a Member is invited to participate in an advisory capacity to oversee and scrutinise and be supported by the management panel; inviting a member of the Trade Union as an observer, however it was noted that Tower Hamlets trade unions had indicated they were not in favour of this option as Trade Union staff may be perceived as being bias towards management if a desired outcome is not reached.
Ms Harcus stated that having consulted with the Trade Unions on these changes, it was reasonable to say that the Trade Unions main concerns were around ensuring things were fair and whether management had followed due process internally. It was believed that the Council operates much more transparently then perhaps the organisation had historically done and was of the view that all staff are treated fairly and consistently, when it comes to managing grievances hearing disciplinaries or managing capability.
At the request of the Chair, Mr John McLoughlin, speaking on behalf of the Joint Trade Unions addressed the Committee and explained that the report recommended a change to the constitution in regards to staff working for the council and this matter was regarded as very important. He then highlighted the following;
· Strongly believed that Councillors had a relatively small but important role in staffing issues, because the role of the Councillors was not just to set policies but also to have some oversight of how those policies work in practice.
· That there been a small number of dismissals appeals that have been referred to Members, a total of 23 in the last 3 years. The vast majority of dismissals are due to redundancy and redeployment which are excluded from the Members appeals process.
· There were concerns over the lack of equalities, as a widespread perception and a concern that where you have managers overseeing decisions over managers there's an inbuilt institutional bias and people feel sometimes that works against certain sections of the workforce and often from experiences, BAME staff are represented in gross misconduct hearings and female staff are disproportionately subject to dismissal under the sickness management process.
· It was the Trade Unions’ view that institutional bias is likely to lead to less willingness to overturn management decisions to dismiss.
· That Councillors had an important role in making sure that the Council operates in the way it should operate, notwithstanding the role of the Head of Paid Service who remains in charge of most of the HR procedures.
· He acknowledged the excellent work done by the Chairs and Members over the years, which was highly valued by staff.
Mr McLoughlin concluded by stating that it was a very small number of appeals that come through to Members appeals and even a smaller number that go on to a tribunal. It was acknowledged that the appeals process requires a degree of resources and high level of training, but this was a proportionate level to have in a Council of this size. Mr McLoughlin therefore urged Members to consider retaining the appeals process as it is and if necessary to take it to the Full council for consideration as it proposes a change to the Constitution and matters for staff who work for the Council.
Following a detailed discussion, the following points were noted;
· It was important that the employee appeals process does an effective job and follows a fair process.
· There were concerns that Members of the Employees Appeals Sub Committee are empowered with a very broad capacity to reinstate staff and it is in practise very difficult to stick to the terms of reference of the committee and can often mean that cases are effectively reheard which is outside the remit of the Sub-Committee.
· There has been a lack of adequate and sufficient training given to Members to understand the complexities of Employment Law.
· That Members would like to see a role for Councillors in the appeals process.
· That the 12 other London boroughs who still retain Member appeals panels had mixed processes i.e. some had full Member panels same as LBTH, some had joint panels where Management chair and Councillors are represented and a couple who have proposed Trade Unions being part of the panel as observers.
· Members suggested that officers look at models where there is more than one Councillor on any panel.
· It was noted that legally it was not possible to have a Joint Officer and Member Panel, it could either be an officer led panel or officer led panel with Members in an advisory capacity or Members only panel.
· It was agreed that a future report to the Committee includes a table detailing the alternative models the 12 other London boroughs who continued to have members on the panel are following.
· It was agreed that officers revisit this piece of work and explore options where Councillors can be involved in the appeals process rather than just having an oversight.
Accordingly, the General Purposes Committee;
Resolved
1. Officers to reflect on the comments made and report back to a future Committee meeting with proposals/options for hybrid panels as an alternative model for Employee Appeals Committee.
Supporting documents: