Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Eric Bosshard and from Mary Odoi. Gill Slater attended as a substitute for Mary Odoi.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the LJCC were agreed.

The Staff Side wish to outline their position with regards next year’s pay award, and wish to explain their opposition to the management proposal to end pay progression for new starters.

The Staff Side Secretary indicted that he wished to discuss the 2015/16 pay award, together with management proposals to end pay progression for new appointments. The Staff Side Secretary outlined several factors that were adversely affecting the living conditions and standard of living for LBB employees:

·  the cost of living had increased

·  housing costs had increased by 11% in LBB in the last twelve months

·  travel to work costs had increased by 7%

·  there had been a fall in earnings in real terms 

·  the RPI had increased by 2.4%

The Staff Side Secretary stated that according to figures provided by the Daily Telegraph, housing costs in Bromley were expected to rise by 25% at 2018.

The Staff Side Secretary further stated:

·  the average price on a three bedroom house in Bromley was £381,000

·  the average price of a three bedroom flat was £237,000

·  the average Bromley rent was £1500.00 per month and rising

The Staff Side were of the opinion that in recent years, LBB employees had in fact experienced an 18% drop in real term living standards, and that if the minimum wage had been aligned with increased living costs, the minimum wage would now be £18.00 per hour.  The Staff Side were of the opinion that there was now a big gulf in pay in LBB between the average LBB employee, and senior management.

The Staff Side argued for a £1.00 an hour pay increase across the board, and for a minimum wage of £10.00 per hour.

For the Employer’s Side, the Director of Human Resources expressed disappointment that the Staff Side had not previously raised the matter of their  proposed pay award at the officer forum. He added that it did not augur well for good industrial relations if the Staff Side did not raise discussions with management first, before approaching the Committee. The Director of Human Resources stated that in his opinion, the statistics that the Staff Side had mentioned were questionable, and omitted to make any reference to the £60m savings target that the council had to find over the next four years. The Director of Human Resources declared that the proposals of the Staff Side would cost £6m per annum, and that such a proposal was reckless and irresponsible in the current financial climate.

Councillor Carr queried the source of the data that had been provided by the Staff Side, averring that in fact fuel and food costs were currently lower. The response of the Staff Side Secretary was that these were national statistics taken from the Government website. The Staff Side Secretary countered by stating that food costs in particular had increased, and that LBB was one of the lowest paying boroughs in the area. The Staff Side felt that the workforce was bearing the brunt of the council’s cutbacks, and that this was at a time when the reserves of the council were not depleted.

The Staff Side raised the matter of ending the incremented pay scheme for new appointments and argued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The Staff Side would like to discuss the matter of changes to terms and conditions, and the issue of collective agreement.

The Staff Side state:

At the time the council introduced local pay and conditions, they did so on the assurance that the only thing that would change was in relation to the pay award, and that all other terms and conditions would remain the same. Also that these terms and conditions could not be changed other than by collective agreements between the union and the employer.

During a recent court case, it became clear that the stated intend of the council is not what is actually stated in the contracts of employment for LBB employees. In light of this the Staff Side wish to propose that the contracts are amended to reflect the council’s stated position; this can easily be achieved through a collective agreement being drawn up between the unions and the council.  

The position of the Staff Side on this matter was as outlined in the agenda text:

“At the time the council introduced local pay and conditions, they did so on the assurance that the only thing that would change was in relation to the pay award, and that all other terms and conditions would remain the same. Also that these terms and conditions could not be changed other than by collective agreements between the union and the employer.

During a recent court case, it became clear that the stated intend of the council is not what is actually stated in the contracts of employment for LBB employees. In light of this the Staff Side wish to propose that the contracts are amended to reflect the council’s stated position; this can easily be achieved through a collective agreement being drawn up between the unions and the council.”  

The submission of the Staff Side was that the stated intend of the council (stated when the council moved from national terms and conditions to local terms and conditions) was not as written in the contracts of employment. It was on this basis that the Staff Side were seeking an amendment to the existing contracts. The Staff Side Secretary commented that “collective talks” were distinct from “collective agreement”. The Staff Side offered to draw up a new contractual clause.

The Director of Human Resources responded that he was not enthused by the idea of the Staff Side Secretary drawing up a legal document, and that the current contract of employment was drawn up as part of the consultation process, and the wording had not been questioned. 

Attention had been drawn to clause 28 of the contact of employment that dealt with the matter of “Collectively Agreed and other Terms and Conditions”. The Director of Human Resources informed the Committee that the recent court case (referred to by the Staff Side) had not ruled on Clause 28, and that LBB were happy with its legality. The Staff Side Secretary responded that there was an issue with Clause 28 because the Unions had not signed up to it.

The Staff Side would like to discuss the Commissioning process and state:

Communications to staff regarding commissioning always make reference to the budget pressures. However so far the commissioning of services does not appear to be delivering significant savings in Bromley and indeed elsewhere in the country e.g. Birmingham.  It appears that the commissioning contracts are in fact a financial burden on the council.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-opinion/david-bailey-service-birminghams-63000-a-day-7870124

We are concerned as the council has to date failed to show how the outsourcing proposals comply with its responsibilities under the Social Value Act 2012.

We are also concerned that the council may not be following its CPR and ask whether the council is assured that through its commissioning process it is acting lawfully in this and other respects.  Has a “Risk Register” been prepared?”  

 The matter of Commissioning was raised for discussion by the Vice Chair.

The Vice Chair stated to the Committee that LBB’s Chief Executive had commented recently that commissioning was not making the cost savings that had been hoped for. The Vice Chair mentioned that staff had been receiving commissioning letters, and that these were stressful. The Vice Chair further stated that when potential providers were receiving soft market testing letters, it was the case that they were being asked what they wanted, rather than what LBB required. The Staff Side stated that the unions and many LBB employees were convinced that LBB were committed to commissioning on an ideological basis, rather than being influenced by objective facts.

The Vice Chair expressed concern with respect to an apparent list of defaults from the contractor “English Landscapes”. These were noted as:

·  poor documentation

·  inexperienced staff

·  playground checks not being undertaken

·  lack of firm commitment to resolve issues

·  complaints from the public

The Staff Side then referenced problems with the cleaning contract; the Staff Side stated that toilets and kitchens had to be recleaned. Two other high profile failed commissioning contracts were referred to and these were the G4S failure during the Olympics, and the problems with contractors moving prisoners in vans. The Vice Chair then referenced the problems and high costs that had been experienced by Birmingham City Council and the “Service Birmingham” contract run by Capita.

The Chairman stated that LBB contracts were closely monitored by LBB officers, and if there were problems with contractors, they would be penalised and action would be taken against them. 

Mr Marc Hume (Director of Regeneration and Transformation) attended to answer the queries and concerns expressed by the Staff Side concerning Commissioning. Mr Hume made the following key points:

a)  Savings: It was not the intention of LBB to use the commissioning process to provide all of the cost savings that LBB were looking for; commissioning was just one mechanism that the council were using to achieve cost reductions. In this regard it was noted that business cases should be well thought out and presented. Officers would make recommendations, but Members would make the final decisions.

Mr Hume informed the Committee that savings and income totalling over £300,000 had recently been made on two new commissioning contracts; these were with respect to customer services and Financial Assessment and Appointeeship. Mr Hume stated that LBB was good at commissioning, and that LBB should build and learn from these successes. Mr Hume also referred to the commissioning that had been done with respect to “My Time“ and Waste Disposal, and commented that LBB were satisfied that these contacts were running successfully.

b)  Mr Hume then moved on to discuss the Social Value Act, and confirmed that LBB were fulfilling their legal obligations under the Act. In this regard, Mr Hume highlighted LBB’s actions with respect to the customer services contract, and that the council had opted for a local solution, which avoided relocation.

c)  Mr Hume stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

The Committee is requested to note that the next meeting will be held on 16^th December 2014.

The date of the next meeting of the LJCC Committee was noted as 16^th December 2014.