Agenda item

THE ANNUAL PAY AWARD

The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:

 

Council staff are set to be poorer again this year as the Council imposes another year of pay cuts for staff with a sub inflation pay award of 2%.  Nationally the pay offer of 2% has yet to be agreed. How do Members propose to honour commitments made to staff that that their annual pay award would be better than those agreed nationally and that, as the number of directly employed staff fell, LBB would pay staff better?

 

 

 

Minutes:

Ms Slater expressed her disappointment that the pay award of 2% was below the RPI which was 3.6% at the time of the meeting. The unions regarded this as a pay cut in real terms. It was noted that the national offer had not yet been accepted. Ms Slater stated that it was important the Council offered realistic pay increases in order to avoid problems with staff retention.

 

Councillor Carr referred to the statement that had been written by Unite in the question:

 

How do Members propose to honour commitments made to staff, that their annual pay award would be better than those agreed nationally and that as the number of directly employed staff fell, LBB would pay staff better?’

 

Councillor Carr asserted that this was a false statement in that the supposed promise to pay staff better than the nationally agreed terms had never been made. He asked Ms Slater what source could be provided to justify the statement. Ms Slater responded that in her view, assurances were implied in meetings. Councillor Carr requested that the statement be withdrawn on the basis that it was not correct. The Chairman asked Ms Slater if she was prepared to withdraw the statement.  Ms Slater responded that she was not in a position to withdraw the statement as it was not hers to withdraw.

 

The Chairman stated that the question was a mis-representation of the facts, and he agreed with Councillor Carr’s rebuttal. The Chairman reminded the Committee that in addition to the 2% pay award, lower paid staff had been offered extra payments in the April pay round, and that the Council also had a pot of £200k that was going to be used for merited pay awards.

 

The Director of Human Resources stated that the question and the argument were obtuse, and that raising the matter now was wrong. He took exception to the question. The Director stated that he had led the pay negotiations and at no time did the Council promise that they would pay more than the national agreement. However, it was the case that over the last four years, Bromley staff had been paid better than the national agreement. He expressed the view that the question had been raised as a ploy to undermine the moral of Bromley staff. He said that Bromley staff did not support Unite in this matter and that was why there had not been any industrial action. The days of large pay increases had passed.

 

Ms Slater expressed the view that the matter was not just about large pay awards, but that it was about pay awards reflecting increases in the cost of living and that public sector workers were being financially penalised by decisions to remain in the private sector. 

 

The Director informed the Committee that Bromley staff would receive their pay award in their April pay, which was not the case when pay awards were agreed via national terms and conditions, where it took longer to finalise and action. The Director expressed the view that the merited pay award scheme was popular with staff. 

 

The Chairman wanted the Committee to also note that LBB was trying to help lower paid staff, which was something in the past which had been opposed by  the unions. The Director of HR addressed the matter of recruitment and retention and stated that the union’s data was inaccurate and that LBB had a very low attrition rate; staff were not leaving and 80 staff had been recruited into Children’s Services. 

 

Councillor Angela Wilkins objected to the comment that the unions did not have the correct figures and stated that she was unhappy with the tone used by the Director of HR.

 

Councillor Fawthrop responded that in his view the discussions had been constructive and that there was nothing wrong with the tone of the meeting and the comments expressed by all parties. He stated that poor performance could not be rewarded, and that it was not logical to suggest that poor performers should get a pay rise. He asked if LBB could be certain that it did not have ‘bell curves’ that it applied.

 

The Director of HR responded that it was LBB’s policy that pay awards be linked to performance, and that LBB did not apply the bell curve. Performance was assessed individually. The number of poor performers across the Council at the time of the meeting was approximately 30, and that it was likely to be the case that 20 would have their pay increases withheld.

 

Councillor Fawthrop stated that it was important that ‘poor performers’ knew what was expected of them so that they had the opportunity to improve. The Director of HR explained that the process would be dealt with by line managers. If a pay increase was going to be withheld, then the manager would inform the staff member in writing, and the staff member would be informed of what he/she would need to do to improve.

 

Councillor Michael Turner commented that he was not aware that LBB withheld pay rises. The Director of HR responded that pay rises were not automatic, but were linked to performance. Councillor Nicholas Bennett asked about pay increments in addition to the standard 2% pay increase. It was confirmed that poor performers would not be eligible for either. Levels of pay could be re-instated if required, but not retrospectively.

 

Ms Slater commented that she had raised the matter concerning the pay award ‘late’ as the previous LJCC meeting had been cancelled. Councillor Wilkins asked if the matter of withholding pay was applicable at all levels. It was confirmed that this was the case except for teachers.