Agenda item

Power point presentation slides are provided for this item.

For this item, copies of power point presentation slides were provided with the agenda.

The Staff Side Secretary referred to anxiety amongst staff concerning the proposal to withdraw from national terms and conditions; there was staff suspicion on the proposal at a time of cuts, redundancies and a pay freeze.

He considered that a 1^st April pay award date and any backdating could be possible under local conditions and this could not, he felt, be a reason to withdraw from national conditions. Instead he was concerned that a 1^st April pay award date would be imposed under local conditions along with a pay award.

Under national conditions, the Staff Side Secretary indicated that LBB can already pay over and above the grade to recruit and retain. He also indicated that local pay and conditions are not necessary for single status. Additionally, under national arrangements there was nothing to prevent the Council granting more leave or remuneration. It was necessary to ask why the Council should have local pay and conditions. The previous day’s national Budget included reference to public sector regional pay bargaining and he asked why the matter could not be left within the remit of Government.

If it was intended to proceed with the proposal, the Staff Side Secretary warned that agreement would not be obtained and there would be large scale industrial action. If there were no real proposals to change and if flexibility was already available in national arrangements, he advocated withdrawing the proposal now rather than waste time and to avoid industrial action.

In response, the Assistant Chief Executive referred to coming out of the national framework on a status quo basis. The concept (of local terms and conditions) had been built on the basis that national arrangements for Bromley do not reflect local circumstances and the desire to realign employment frameworks. With reference to the budget (and references to regional pay bargaining) it was possible to see that the national arrangement could not go forward; the national framework had not given flexibility. The Assistant Chief Executive enquired of what staff were worried about concerning terms and other matters. The logic behind the proposal was that the Council could better align decision processes with financial arrangements; it was having the flexibility particularly to reward on a local basis better than was currently possible. Management was prepared to negotiate with Trade Unions and the Council was not taking the proposal forward with a desire to reduce terms of conditions – the Council would always remain competitive in the local market. 

The Vice-Chairman felt that there was nothing outlined by the Assistant Chief Executive which gave a reason for taking the proposal forward. There was already flexibility under national terms and conditions, unless there were proposals to reduce current provision. It was necessary for the Assistant Chief Executive to explain why this was being undertaken. She enquired of the reasons for wanting to opt out of national arrangements if there was no intention of lowering current provision. This was causing major problems and she could not understand why such action to staff was being considered at this time. Mr Richard Harries enquired of what it was that management had not obtained from national arrangements and negotiations that was wanted.

The Assistant Chief Executive referred to the annual pay award process. There were some parts of national terms and conditions that needed to be brought up to date; the process was so protracted. It was necessary to make changes for the future and the Council needed to be in a position where its terms and conditions could change. National finances could change and it was necessary for employers to respond.

Councillor Stephen Carr referred to a culture change and a need for the Council to be master of its own destiny. He also referred to rewarding flexibility and singling out for rewarding, indicating that there would be no reductions for what people were earning in or out of national terms and conditions. He added that there was nothing sinister in the proposal. Councillor Nicholas Bennett indicated that there would not be national pay bargaining at Bromley if the Council were starting again. It was not proposed to cut away what staff had at the moment. But there was a desire for Bromley to be master of its own house and destiny. Councillor Bennett indicated that it should be the Council negotiating with its staff and that this should not be taken away by national arrangements. Councillor Michael Turner highlighted that the former London County Council was not part of national terms and conditions. He felt that a local authority as an employer should be completely in charge of its terms and conditions of employment. Councillor Eric Bosshard also referred to the Localism Act and highlighted that flexibility is needed.

The Staff Side Secretary suggested that it would be difficult for the Council to be in control of its future destiny as so much emanates from central government. He suggested that workers felt more security and less vulnerability with national arrangements.

Where there was no additional funding, the Staff Side Secretary suggested that the only way to pay a worker more was to take away from others e.g. one receives performance pay and others do not. In any consultation with staff he suggested there was no evidence that opting out of national terms and conditions would be supported.

Councillor Carr referred to the achievement of savings with approaches such as efficiency; savings had been imaginatively achieved to protect front line services.

The Chairman referred to the staff side in previous years requesting greater flexibility and it was flexibility that was now being offered, however, the Staff Side Secretary felt that the only conclusion his side could draw was that the employers wanted to go below the minimum. The Chairman referred to the Council wanting to obtain the best people and to reward accordingly.

In conclusion, it was explained that the proposal would be discussed again when it came up for consultation.