Agenda item

A paper had been submitted for the Committee’s attention, outlining proposed changes to the Constitution and Functions of the LJCC. The changes proposed were to reduce the number of Trade Union and Departmental Representatives, and also to amend the rules relating to quoracy, so that a meeting could take place if any two members of the Staff Side were in attendance. The Chairman felt that this was a sensible idea in that it would make it easier to form a quorum, thus avoiding the previous issues of meetings being cancelled as they were not quorate. In the revised LJCC Constitution and Functions document, it was also proposed to remove the provision that currently allowed for external trade union representatives to attend the Committee, subject to the agreement of both sides of the LJCC. 

The Staff Side pointed out that the existing provision (Regulation 8) allowed for external trade union representatives, who were not employees of LBB, to attend to represent staff. They expressed concern that there was a proposal for this provision to be abolished, as Regulation 8 which allowed for external union representatives to attend the LJCC (without voting rights and with the agreement of both sides) did not appear in the proposed LJCC revised Constitution and Functions document. The Staff Side expressed the view that it was vital to keep Regulation 8, as it was important to allow external representatives to come along and contribute to discussions. The Chairman had agreed that external trade union representatives could be invited to attend the meeting on this occasion.

The Staff Side expressed disappointment that agreement to allow external trade union representation had been provided late for this meeting, and this had resulted in trade union apologies.

The Staff Side stated that if the intention was indeed to remove Regulation 8, that this intention be re-considered, and that the ability to allow external trade union input to discussions be retained, as they felt it was important to allow external trade union representatives to attend and contribute to discussions as they represented Council staff.

The Chairman responded and stated that in his view, the trade union representatives, who were able to have an input at the LJCC, should be part of the Council and that in this way they would be more familiar with Council issues. This position was shared and supported by most of the Chairman’s colleagues at the meeting. 

A Member stated that the description ‘external trade union representatives’ could be misunderstood and misconstrued. The trade union representatives would be attending simply to support members of Council staff who were trade union members. The Staff Side expressed the view that the matters they raised on behalf of their members affected all staff. 

The Director of HR clarified that the proposal was to remove Regulation 8 and to thereby remove the provision, and this was why the provision had been excluded in the proposed revised Constitution and Functions document. Subsequent to this clarification, the Vice Chairman requested that the intent to remove Regulation 8 be reconsidered and the Regulation be reinstated. The Chairman responded that this would be a Member decision.

A Member said that he did not see the value of external trade union representatives attending, as in his view they were primarily concerned with representing the trade union rather than their members. The Staff Side rejected this and responded that they did represent staff who were union members, as matters brought to the LJCC demonstrated.

The Vice Chairman said that her time and experience was limited and there may be instances such as when complicated or technical issues arose, where she would need help and advice from others in the trade union that were more experienced and knowledgeable than herself. This would ensure that the matters were fully and effectively discussed at the LJCC.

The Staff Side highlighted that over the last twenty years, LJCC meetings in Councils had in the main, been a meeting between the Councillors and the trade unions, and in most Councils this was still the case. A Member responded that times had changed and trade union membership of staff in Bromley had declined. A Member stated that it was the case that both sides of the LJCC at times required help and advice, the Councillors could refer to the Director of HR at the meeting, and similarly the Staff Side at times would need the assistance of external trade union representatives to provide advice. A Member added that the Director of HR also worked with, and provided advice to employees.

The Director of HR reasoned that if the Vice Chairman or any other trade union representative on the LJCC required advice, they could obtain this via their own internal system. There was no legal requirement for an external trade union representative to attend the LJCC.

A Member expressed concern that if the quoracy rules were not changed, and it was still a requirement for one trade union representative to attend, then if the trade unions nationally took industrial action, it could be the case that union representatives may not attend the LJCC as part of the industrial action and so the meeting would need to be cancelled to the detriment of a significant number of the Council’s staff. The Staff Side responded that the unions would not do that, and would not consider non-attendance at the LJCC to be part of industrial action.

The Chairman moved to refer the proposals to the GP&L Committee, but the Vice Chairman indicated that she wanted to discuss in more detail the proposed changes to the rules around quoracy. She expressed concern that the new rules would mean that it was possible in some cases for meetings to take place without any trade union representation. She felt it was important that trade union representation was present so that the trade unions could participate in negotiations.

The Director of HR responded that the trade unions could appoint alternates including shop stewards or trade union members within the organisation. The Vice Chairman explained that providing union representation at the LJCC was not an easy task, and anyone acting as an alternate would need to be competent and properly briefed.

A Member expressed sympathy with the Vice Chairman in this regard, in that it was not always easy to find suitable substitutes. However, he felt that the proposed changes to the quoracy rules did make things easier, and that everyone concerned should ensure that their diaries were cleared to avoid meetings being cancelled. The Vice Chairman pointed out that all of the cancellations (bar one) were due to non-attendance by Departmental Representatives.

A Departmental Representative commented that he accepted that there was a problem with Departmental Representatives attending the LJCC. He explained that this was because in many cases the Departmental Representatives felt that the matters discussed at the LJCC were better placed for the trade union to respond to. They felt that often they had little to contribute to the matters being discussed. 

There was a discussion around how many LBB employees were trade union members. The Staff Side declined to provide this information. But advised that under the new Direct Debit system the Council would not have a record of membership and that generally staff did not wish their Trade Union membership to be disclosed to the Council. Mr Parnell agreed that this was the case.

RESOLVED that the proposed revision to the Constitution and Functions of the LJCC be referred to the GP&L Committee for consideration, as the LJCC was unable to arrive at an agreement.