The Staff Side make the following comment:
At the last LJCC, the staff side raised concerns about the process by which the decision to alter the “Employee Representation Arrangements” was taken by the GP&L. Despite the unions concerns about the robustness of the process and proposal, the report advised that “in the face of massive budget gaps totalling circa £50m in the next few years, the Council is proposing a number of financial and structural changes unprecedented in the history of the organisation, resulting in difficult but unavoidable decisions” and advised that “regrettably it is proposed to end the secondment of staff into staff representation roles (i.e. the trade union and the staff side secretary roles) at tax payers’ expense”.
Following from this, the Staff Side would like to ask the Committee the following questions:
Are members aware of the offer from UNITE to pay for the Branch Secretary wages?
Also, is the Committee prepared, (as was suggested in para 6.5) to review the arrangement, “in the interest of good industrial relations, effective staff engagement and the Council’s overall duty of care to Bromley residents”
Minutes:
Kathy Smith stated that Unite had offered to pay all the expenses for a Unite Branch Secretary, and so this would not cost the Council anything. She requested that management release her back into her Trade Union role. She highlighted that her manager in the library was not happy with the current arrangement whereby Kathy had to ask for time off for Trade Union activities, as this was disruptive to the working of the library. It was also disruptive to pull out other trade union representatives from other parts of the Council.
Cllr Carr pointed out that the LJCC did not make decisions; the current position that the Council had adopted with respect to trade union representation would be reviewed in the future. He pointed out what he regarded as the needless disruption and problems that the recent strike action had caused, and questioned if the unions were properly aware of the consequences of their actions. Cllr Carr continued that permission would be given by the Council where appropriate for Trade Union duties, and that it was hoped to streamline the process in the near future.
Mr Kelly commented that Cllr Carr had not addressed the question, and that there was a statutory duty on the Council to allow for Trade Union duties. He stated that there were problems with the current set up, and that the original problem highlighted by the council was a financial one that would now be resolved if the UNITE offer was accepted by the Council.
Mr Kelly asked why the Council would reject the proposal if the issue was purely financial, and was the offer of financial assistance from the unions conveyed to Members. He also mentioned that the Council may face legal action from the Unions.
The Director commented that the unions had ample time during the extensive consultation period to put the offer to the Council but failed to do so at the time. The new arrangement was consistent with the Council decision to cease staff representation secondment, and any request for time off for legitimate trade union duties would be properly considered and balanced against the Council’s service delivery interests. He further stated that the time that was allowed had to be “reasonable”, and that it may not be possible to get time off for every request. The Chairman stated that the current position would be kept under review.
Cllr Fawthrop asked what would be an objective test of what was “reasonable” in terms of time allowed for trade union duties. The Director responded that time off would be allowed for a “duty”, and not an “activity”. It would need to be for a situation that had arisen that would impact on the terms and conditions of an employee. It was the case that the current situation could be managed and that there had been a need for change. Cllr Fawthrop responded that there was a danger that an objective test could change to a subjective test, based on the fact that no legal threshold had been established. This may be a matter that the Committee could revisit in the future.
Cllr Dunn asked if the matter could be reviewed now, and subsequently be referred back to the GP&L Committee. The Chairman responded that for now it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo whilst keeping the matter under review, and that any future change would need to be ratified by the GP&L Committee.