Minutes:
The Staff-side Secretary outlined the extensive process taken to negotiate the Single Status deal, and he explained in detail the Single Status appeals process highlighting that the Employer’s-side could impose a right of veto which gave an unfair advantage to management in considering an appeal.
At an appeal the appellant’s manager was supported by a HR officer. The appellant could also be supported and a technical adviser could be invited to attend an appeal. It was noted that technical adviser had previously appeared at an appeal without the agreement of both the parties. The technical adviser been identified as a member of the original Single Status negotiating team and therefore could not be considered unbiased. The Staff-side Secretary felt that an agreed list of approved technical advisers should be drawn up.
The Staff-side Secretary highlighted the fact that according to current procedures the appeals panel was the final arbiter and, within the procedure, there was no further right of appeal. In one case a group of Carelink workers had achieved an upgrade. After the appeal panel, the technical adviser had visited the Adult and Community Services Director to report that some of the information heard in the appeal had been, according to the technical adviser, inaccurate. This matter was now under consultation and did not reflect a fair process; either both sides should have the right to reopen the appeal against the decision of a panel or neither. The Staff-side Secretary requested that management undertake consultation with the trade unions and the staff-side on this issue.
The Assistant Chief Executive (HR) agreed to involve the Staff-side Secretary in consultation of this matter which was already being discussed with the trade unions. The decision to revisit the Carelink case had been considered carefully. He felt that panel decisions should be based on accurate information and the right of reopen appeal should be limited to what was fair. He wanted to guard against abuse of the single status appeals procedure by both sides.
The Assistant Chief Executive (HR) explained that Barbara Plaw had been the technical adviser involved as an expert on the job evaluation process she was able to give advice on procedural matters. On her advice, HR had consulted with the trade unions but had not imposed any decision on the employees in question. He assured the Committee that this action had not been taken lightly as it had been an exceptional situation.
The Leader of the Council stated that it was most important that the final decision of appeals panels was correct and that both sides were treated equally.
The Vice-Chairman reiterated that the scheme had been agreed. The process stated that the panel’s decision was final and the decision should be made on the information heard by the panel. The Vice-Chairman stated that there was no provision for the technical adviser to advise after the event or to go to management. Procedure should be adhered to in all cases.
A Councillor commented that if a decision was found to be based on inaccurate information it seemed reasonable to re-open the case. A decision should not stand on the wrong information. However, this should work both ways.
The Staff-side Secretary reiterated that the appeal panel had heard information presented by both sides, and neither side had suggested that the information had been inaccurate. The appeal panel had made a decision in line with the Council’s procedure and the information considered but management had deviated from the procedure and were now asking for retrospective agreement. The Staff-side and the Trade Unions acted as advisers on this procedure and therefore should be kept informed of changes. Workers must feel that appeals would be fair and the technical adviser must ne seen as unbiased. There must also be a further appeals process available for both sides. The current position could have easily been changed under consultation.
The Chairman commented that this was an ongoing debate.
The Vice-Chairman advised that more information was needed, for instance, how material the omission was. She was uncomfortable with picking apart the process but agreed that the original process needed refinements. She also advised the Committee that there had been no inaccurate information presented to the appeals panel around work currently undertaken by the appellants. The question that had been raised had been whether the appellants had been undertaking certain of those duties in 2007.
The Assistant Chief Executive (HR) agreed to report the outcome of discussions with the trade unions back to the Committee.
RESOLVED that feedback on the outcome of the consultation between management and the trade unions on possible changes to the single status appeal procedure be reported to a future meeting of the Committee.