The Staff Side would like to ask the following question:
Does the Council have a breakdown of the numbers of Bromley Council jobs outsourced over the last 10 years? Long standing staff providing the same or even increased services to the Council are not guaranteed and often not receiving pay awards equivalent to those which they would have received had they not been outsourced. Has the Council undertaken any monitoring of the pay awards made to former Bromley staff, now employed externally to provide Council services, in order to understand the implications of commissioning decisions for staff, and if not will it?
Minutes:
The Staff Side had asked the following question that was read out by the Chairman:
Does the Council have a breakdown of the numbers of Bromley Council jobs outsourced over the last 10 years? Long standing staff providing the same or even increased services to the Council are not guaranteed and often not receiving pay awards equivalent to those which they would have received had they not been outsourced. Has the Council undertaken any monitoring of the pay awards made to former Bromley staff, now employed externally to provide Council services, in order to understand the implications of commissioning decisions for staff, and if not will it?
The Director of Human Resources had circulated the following written response prior to the meeting:
In the last 10 years, 428 staff have been TUPE transferred to other organisations. The Council is not required to monitor the pay of staff of other organisations. More importantly, the Council does not interfere or get involved in the terms and conditions of employment of third party organisations. That is a matter between these organisations and their workforce.
The Vice Chairman clarified that she was aware that LBB did not currently monitor the pay awards of former Bromley staff, but that she was asking if LBB could monitor them in the future. She asked if certain requirements could be incorporated into the contracts when LBB was undertaking commissioning. She expressed the view that LBB was not taking into account the reduced pay for commissioned staff. She felt that this was a moral and social issue that adversely affected the health of staff, and impacted on productivity. She expressed the view that if the Council did not ensure the well-being of staff that had been commissioned out to work on Council services, then this could pose a risk to the adequate provision of those services.
The Chairman reminded everyone that the Council used the TUPE process which would ensure that outsourced staff were transferred out with their existing terms and conditions protected. He stated that recently, he was aware of a contract that had not been outsourced as the contractor would not agree to the TUPE of Bromley staff.
A Member commented that the information the Vice Chairman was seeking was likely to be the subject of Freedom of Information requests. The Council would not wish to impose unnecessary burdens on those companies that it was looking to commission work to, as well as unnecessary burdens on the Council in researching the information. It should also be borne in mind that many of these companies were larger than LBB, which would in itself create new opportunities for outsourced staff.
A Member agreed with the Vice Chairman, stating that it seemed that savings accrued by the Council in outsourcing were borne by outsourced staff in the form of reduced pay awards going forward.
A Member expressed the view that LBB should not seek to influence the pay policy of any organisation other than LBB. This was a view seconded by the Director of HR (Charles Obazue) Even if LBB had access to the relevant data, what would they do with it--as LBB would still be in the position of being unable to influence the pay policy of another organisation. Such a course of action could also pose a legal risk to the Council because by influencing or determining the pay of outsourced staff they could be used as comparators for equal pay purposes. The Director of Commissioning expressed the view that it would be much harder for LBB to commission services if they tried to influence the pay policy of other organisations.
The Vice Chairman responded that whilst she appreciated some of the difficulties raised by the issue, she felt that it was the case that LBB could do more if they had the will. By this she was referring to building in extra staff protection into contracts such as the London Living Wage or TUPE plus arrangements.