Agenda item

The Council aims to be a ‘Dream Organisation’ for staff, and the Council’s mental Health Champion has made presentations to HR and to managers. 

However, the reality faced by Bromley staff, is one of poor basic working conditions, aggressive HR processes (highlighted at the last LJCC) and high levels of work related stress. Will the Council undertake an audit of working conditions and staff wellbeing and supply information regarding the levels of ill health brought about by stress / mental health?

Councillor David Cartwright referred to the text of the question which read as follows:

‘…the reality faced by Bromley staff, is one of poor basic working conditions, aggressive HR processes and high levels of work related stress.’ 

Councillor Cartwright questioned the truth of this statement and felt that the statement should be refuted as it was not true. Councillor Wilkins reminded the Committee that what was being requested was for the Council to undertake an audit of staff working conditions and well-being. Councillor Cartwright responded that it would not be right to undertake an action based on a false premise.   

Mention was made of the appeal process for disciplinary hearings; many of the Members felt that having a three stage appeal process was too protracted. The Director of HR stated that poor working conditions were never an issue at appeal hearings.

The Leader mentioned problems that had occurred with the Amey contract. He said that failings had been identified and rectified. Similarly, the Director of HR stated that when required, Amey had been challenged by the Departmental Representatives and Members. It was not in the Council’s interests to have poor working conditions. With respect to any cases involving dismissal, Members were informed. It was also noted that LBB had not lost any dismissal cases at tribunal hearings.   

The Committee noted a document that had been tabled by the Director of HR. This detailed the number of employees categorised as suffering from ‘Stress, Depression, Anxiety and Mental Health’ issues over the last three years. The total number of LBB employees suffering from such issues during 2017/2018 was 46, with an average number of days off per person of 23.

The Director of HR stated that the absence figure was low, and it was also very important to note that many of these cases would not be related to stress and depression caused by the working environment at LBB. 

The Chairman expressed the view that the opinion presented by the Union was factually incorrect. Ms Slater re-affirmed her view that there had been poor working conditions experienced by staff as a result of Amey’s deficiencies. She commented that until recently, there had not been any cold water for one of the ladies’ toilets. The toilet referred to was still dirty.

Ms Slater expressed disappointment that a union representative was not allowed to attend Departmental Representative meetings. 

Ms Slater referred to the ACAS guidance (2015) on conducting workplace investigations that was part of the agenda pack. She stated that the way that LBB was conducting workplace investigations was not in line with the ACAS code of practice, particularly with respect to the role of the investigator. She said that the Bromley procedures dated from 1992 and that the procedures outlined that they should be jointly agreed by the LJCC; furthermore it indicated that there were amendments in 2016 which, she noted, were not brought to the LJCC. She requested that the Bromley procedures be revisited in line with best practice and the matter came back to a future LJCC meeting.  

Ms Slater asserted that with respect to disciplinary hearings, it should be the case that one set of documents be provided to each Chief Officer. She felt that procedural change was required to make the process less adversarial and unpleasant for all parties.

The Director of HR responded that with respect to procedures conforming to ACAS guidelines, the Council had never received any complaints from the tribunals concerning this. The Director of HR assured that the main report for a disciplinary hearing would have been provided to the staff member concerned in plenty of time, and in accordance with ACAS guidelines. By definition, such matters would have an element of adversarial content. The Director of HR clarified that the Council had a procedure specifically for managing absences.

The Leader expressed the view that the wording of the question was based on a false premise and was itself adversarial. It was designed for a unite trade union website, and was politically motivated.

Councillor Fawthrop came back to the issue of improving procedures, and he asked if hearings were recorded. The Director of HR replied that this was not currently the procedure, but it could be considered for the future, as well as associated clerking issues.

Councillor Wilkins feared that the baby was being thrown out with the bathwater, and that the requested audit was sensible.

Councillor Cartwright suggested that a positive way forward would be for Ms Slater to take up the Director’s offer of a dialogue outside of the meeting. Councillor Cartwright said that LBB was not sending children up chimneys and that some of the matters raised were for management action. He felt that the terms of reference required for the suggested audit could take a year, were not achievable, and the cost would be prohibitive.

The Chairman stated that the proposal should be rejected and the meeting was closed at 8.30pm.