report to: corporate services committee 30 march 2011 ... · employment based cost review:...

REPORT TO: CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

30 March 2011

AGENDA ITEM:

SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT BASED COST REVIEW

LEAD OFFICER: Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development

CABINET MEMBER:

Councillor Sara Bashford, Cabinet Member for Resources and Customer Services

WARDS: All

CORPORATE PRIORITY/POLICY CONTEXT: Reducing employment-based costs.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY: As previously reported to this Committee the changes as a result of the Employment Based Cost Review are estimated to result in savings of £1.8m in 2011/12, £2m in 2012/13 and £3m in 2013/14.

The annual savings as a result of the voluntary severance scheme are estimated at £4.4m. These are reduced to £1.7m in the first year as a result of the costs of redundancy and early retirement.

FORWARD PLAN KEY DECISION REFERENCE NO.: This is not an executive decision. 1. RECOMMENDATION 1.1 The Committee is asked to note the report which gives an update on

progress in implementing the Employment Based Cost Review and the Voluntary Severance Scheme.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1. The report informs the Committee on developments made in implementing the employment based cost review and associated activities.

3. DETAIL

3.1. Employment based cost review (EBCR)

3.1.1. At its meeting on 13 October 2010, the Committee agreed proposals for consultation on the employment based costs review (Min.A86/10) and subsequently received an oral report from the Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development on the outcome of that consultation with the three

Trade Unions. Members were informed that, following a ballot of their members, a unanimous decision had been received from the unions agreeing to the changes. Therefore a collective agreement would be the next stage in the process which the Chief Executive was given authority to complete on behalf of the Council (Min. A111/10).

3.1.2. The negotiations with the trade unions had culminated in a package of measures which were put to trade union members as the best that could be achieved through negotiation. Following each trade union balloting its members the collective agreement was signed on 18 January 2011. The changes, on the basis of the current establishment, will reduce annual employment costs by approximately £1.8m in 2011/12, £2m in 2012/13 and £3m in 2013/14 and annually thereafter.

3.1.3. The changes in terms and conditions are detailed in the collective agreement a copy of which is Appendix 1 to this report. In summary, these are:

• Limiting incremental progression to employees who receive an excellent annual appraisal.

• Abolishing overtime payments for employees at or above grade 12 and reducing overtime enhancements for lower graded staff.

• Removing the protected Saturday working enhancement from 1/4/13. • Reducing the Sunday and night working enhancements rate from 1/4/13. • Redefining shift patterns so there are fewer shift payments. • Redefining essential car user allowance to achieve a reduction in essential

users. • Removing the protected lease car and lease car cash equivalent schemes

from 1/4/12. • Limiting pay protection to one year only. • Reducing redundancy payments. • Reduction in annual leave to a maximum of 30 days.

3.1.4. The effect of reaching a collective agreement is that the changes in terms and conditions become incorporated into employees’ contracts of employment from the date the collective agreement was signed. The new contractual changes will therefore apply to employees who transfer to another employer under the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations between the date the agreement is signed and the implementation date of the new terms and conditions. Without an agreement the change of terms and conditions could only be achieved through consultation with individual employees and then the dismissal and re-engagement of the workforce who do not agree to the changes. Such imposition is time-consuming, resource intensive, damaging to employee relations, carries significant risk of industrial and a high likelihood of litigation.

3.1.5. It was intended that implementation of changes made to the terms and conditions would all be effective from 1 April 2011 except where indicated differently in paragraph.3.1. This continues to be the case except for the change to car user allowances which is now to be effective from 1 May 2011.

3.1.6. The consultation proposals agreed by the Committee on 13 October 2010 referred to the Council’s exploring a car pool scheme through the car club Streetcar. The scheme supports a reduction in the number of employees using their own cars for business whilst: maintaining the council’s ability to deliver

services flexibly and efficiently; achieving better sustainability and reduced levels of C02; reducing the demand for car parking; providing a flexible solution that enables staff to have sufficient mobility to do their job without having to rely on their own vehicle; and providing access to Streetcar vehicles for the public outside of the Council’s core working week.

3.1.7. The pool car scheme has been operating as pilot since October 2010 with the number of cars increasing on a phased basis in keeping with increased take up from staff. There are now some 20 pool cars available, with the majority located in the Wandle Road staff car park. After a successful pilot, it is intended to expand the scheme on a more permanent basis, subject to normal procurement processes. This will see a further increase in the number of pool cars available with an additional 20 or so being located in Wandle Road car park. Although this will reduce the number of car parking spaces available to staff in Wandle Road, the additional pressure will be absorbed by the reduction in the number of approved car users through the employment based cost review.

3.1.8. During the consultation process and since agreement was reached, staff have been kept informed through: road shows; intranet communications; articles in the Loop; staff briefings; direct correspondence; a dedicated phone line; email cascades and a regularly updated frequently asked questions on the intranet. All employees affected by the proposals will be written to shortly and formally advised of the changes to their terms and conditions.

3.1.9. The terms and conditions for chief officers are not included in the council’s collective bargaining arrangements and therefore the collective agreement will not apply to chief officers. Only a few of the terms and conditions changed through the collective agreement are applicable to chief officers: incremental progression; pay protection; redundancy payments and annual leave. For chief officers these changes are being implemented through individual consultation.

3.2. Voluntary severance scheme

3.2.1. On 17 November 2010, the Committee agreed a time-limited voluntary severance scheme (Min.A101/10). The scheme was introduced primarily as a response to the front-loading of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review and the need to achieve full-year efficiencies for 2011/12.

3.2.2. Employees were invited to apply for voluntary severance with applications considered on a corporate basis and decisions made in light of:

• The payback period of the costs of releasing individuals • Whether the individual was in a service already identified for review • Whether the individual was in a role deemed as “hard to fill” or has skills that

are difficult to replace. • The service implications for releasing an individual

3.2.3. 404 employees submitted applications for voluntary severance of which 174 were offered the opportunity to leave. Of these 124 agreed and will be leaving before 1 April 2011.

3.2.4. It is estimated that the voluntary severance scheme will achieve annual savings in the region of £4,399,000 plus on costs. Year 1 savings, after taking into account the severance costs and those for early release of pension benefits are expected to be £1,700,000.

4. FINANCIAL AND RISK CONSIDERATIONS

4.1. The detailed financial implications are set out in the body of the report and are outlined in the financial summary. The estimated savings are reflected in the 2011/12 budget.

(Approved by: Richard Simpson, Director of Financial Services) 5. COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL SOLICITOR AND MONITORING OFFICER

5.1. The Council Solicitor comments that beyond employment issues for individuals

that may arise there are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

(Approved by Julie Belvir, Council Solicitor and Monitoring Officer) 6. HUMAN RESOURCES IMPACT

6.1. The Human Resources implications are contained in the main report.

7. CUSTOMER IMPACT

7.1. There are no direct considerations.

8. EQUALITIES IMPACT

8.1. An equalities impact assessment has been undertaken on the employment based

cost review proposals and was considered by the Equalities and Cohesion Board. A copy of the assessment is included in appendix 2.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN IMPACT

9.1. There are no such considerations arising from this report.

10. CRIME AND DISORDER REDUCTION IMPACT

10.1. There are no such considerations arising from this report.

11. RISK ASSESSMENT

11.1. As reported to the Committee on 13 October 2010, introducing the proposed changes to terms and conditions without agreement of the trade unions would

have required individual consultation with employees and most likely the dismissal and reengagement of workforce as a whole. Significant employee relations unrest, litigation, industrial action, adverse publicity and disruption to services would have been likely from such an exercise. Whilst introducing unpopular changes to terms and conditions will never be without risk, these are reduced significantly with the collective agreement.

11.2. There is also a possibility that the changes to terms and conditions implemented through the Employment Based Cost Review will impact on the Council’s ability to attract and retain talent. However, with the majority of local authorities taking similar action to reduce employment costs Croydon’s overall employment offer, even with the changes, remains attractive, especially compared to the private sector.

12. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT

12.1. There are no issues arising from this report.

13. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION/DATA PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS

13.1. There are no specific issues arising from this report. CONTACT OFFICER: Pam Parkes, Director of Human Resources and Organisational

Development BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: None

APPENDIX 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON

EMPLOYMENT BASED COST REVIEW: COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

This is a Collective Agreement, reached between Croydon Council and the recognised trade unions, Unison, GMB and Unite. This agreement has been endorsed by elected Members and is signed below on behalf of the parties.

1. Introduction

1.1. This Collective Agreement (the “Agreement”) implements changes to terms and conditions as specified below as part of the Council’s Employment Based Cost Review (EBCR).

1.2. The Agreement has been arrived at following negotiations with the representatives of the recognised trade unions Unison, GMB and Unite. The Agreement has been entered into following each trade union balloting its membership.

1.3. In accordance with the Council’s collective bargaining arrangements, this Collective Agreement is incorporated into the terms and conditions of employment of those employees stated in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2.

1.4. Some of the provisions in this document supersede those in the Single Status Collective Agreement between the Council and the trade unions signed on 19 November 2007 and the Addendum to the Single Status Collective Agreement signed on 8 July 2008 (collectively referred to in this document as the “Council’s Single Status Agreement”). Unless changed by the provisions in this document all other provisions in the Council’s Single Status Agreement remain the same.

1.5. Unless otherwise stated the terms of the Agreement come into effect on the Implementation Date specified below.

1.6. Matters of interpretation or application should be referred to the director of HR&OD for resolution in the first instance. The director of HR&OD may refer the matter to the Corporate Staff Consultation forum or any succeeding body.

2. Scope

2.1. The provisions set out in this document apply to all employees directly employed by Croydon Council, except for teachers and lecturers.

2.2. For clarity: The Agreement applies to: employees other than teachers in community

schools and pupil referral units; youth workers; employees on Craftworkers and Soulbury terms and conditions.

The Agreement does not apply to employees in schools where the council is not the employer e.g. voluntary aided and foundation schools.

The provisions relating to weekend working, night working and shift pay do not apply to Youth Workers.

3. Implementation Date

3.1. The Implementation Date of the Agreement is 1 April 2011.

4. Incremental progression

4.1. Currently employees appointed on grades with more than one spinal point have the potential to progress incrementally to the top spinal point of the grade subject to satisfactory performance. This is being replaced by employees being eligible for an increment only if: they have been in post for a full performance year; have received an overall rating of excellent in their annual assessment for the previous performance year; and have headroom to progress in their grade. The annual assessment must be carried out under the council’s current performance development competency scheme (PDCS) or an equivalent scheme that may replace the PDCS in the future.

4.2. For the purposes of the Agreement the performance year is April to March. Increments, where they are applicable, are effective only on 1 April each year. Under these new arrangements only employees who receive an excellent rating in their PDCS for 2010/11 and who have been in post since before 30 April 2010 will

be eligible for incremental progression on 1 April 2011. This principle will continue for subsequent performance years. This paragraph does not apply to employees in schools (see paragraph 4.4 below) or Soulbury employees whose incremental date is September (see paragraph 4.5 below).

4.3. For the sake of clarity, being directly assimilated into a post on the basis of an 80% or higher match under the Council’s reorganisation and restructuring procedures does not constitute a change in posts. Being appointed to a post in the following circumstances is regarded as a change in post for the purposes of the Agreement: following a match of less than 80% under the reorganisation and restructuring procedures; through redeployment; or in response to an internal or external advert.

4.4. To allow time for all schools to introduce an objective and competency based appraisal scheme transitional arrangements are necessary for school employees. The performance year is April to March and employees in schools will be eligible for incremental progression on 1 April 2011 if they have been in post for a full performance year (i.e. since before 30 April 2010) and have headroom for progression. The provision for incremental progression being dependant on receiving an excellent rating in their appraisal scheme will apply from 1 April 2012 rather than 1 April 2011, so only employees who receive an excellent rating in their appraisal scheme for 2011/12 and who have been in post since before 30 April 2011 will be eligible for incremental progression on 1 April 2012. This principle will continue for subsequent performance years. For school employees all other provisions relating to incremental progression will apply as stated in the Agreement with increments, where they are applicable, being effective only on 1 April each year.

4.5. For some Soulbury employees, the performance year is September to August and increments are effective only on 1 September each year. Those employees who receive an excellent rating in their PDCS for 2010/11, who have been in post since before 30 September 2010 and who have headroom for progression in their grade will be eligible for incremental progression on 1 September 2011. This principle will continue for subsequent performance years with increments, where they are applicable, being effective only on 1 September each year.

4.6. Because incremental progression depends on a specific outcome from the PDCS or equivalent scheme process, eligible employees will not receive incremental progression automatically on 1 April or for some Soulbury employees 1 September. Increments will not be processed until the PDCS or equivalent scheme process is complete (including any appeal or moderation stages) and back dated to 1 April.

4.7. The arrangements specified in this section regarding incremental progression supersede those referred to in the Council’s PDCS scheme.

5. Additional hours payments (Overtime)

5.1. Employees at grade 12 and above (or equivalent1)

5.1.1. With effect from the Implementation Date employees at or above grade 12 are required to work all reasonable hours necessary to discharge the duties of their post.

5.1.2. Overtime payments are not payable for additional hours worked as part of the employee’s substantive post. Employees working additional hours outside of the scope of their substantive post may be paid overtime subject to approval in advance from the relevant director. Where such overtime is worked it will be paid at plain time i.e. at the employee’s basic hourly rate with no enhancement. The basic hourly rate for these purposes is calculated by reference to the normal full-time equivalent hours of 36 per week.

5.2. Employees at grade 11 and below (or equivalent)

5.2.1. With effect from the implementation date, the rate at which employees at grade 11 or below are paid for additional hours will be:

i) Plain time for overtime hours worked Monday to Saturday between 6 am and 8 pm i.e. paid at the employee’s basic hourly rate

ii) Basic hourly pay enhanced by 20% (i.e. time and a fifth) for overtime hours worked Monday to Saturday between 8 pm and 6 am.

iii) Basic hourly pay enhanced by 50% (i.e. time and a half) for overtime hours worked on a Sunday. Sunday hours are those worked between midnight Saturday and midnight Sunday.

6. Weekend working

6.1. The Council’s Single Status Agreement established the normal working week as Monday to Saturday 7 am to 7 pm with payment during these hours being made at plain time. In implementing the Council’s Single Status Agreement the Council agreed to protect employees who at 1 April 2008 were already receiving a pay enhancement for hours worked on a Saturday as part of their normal working week. Subject to certain qualifying conditions, these employees will receive an enhancement of 33% on their basic hourly pay for hours worked on a Saturday between 6 am and 8 pm as part of their normal working week.

1 The following are regarded as being at grade 12 and above: Educational Improvement Professionals on spinal point 6 and above; Educational Psychologists on scale A point 3 and above; Educational Psychologists on scale B point 1 and above; Young People Community Services Managers on spinal point 5 and above.

6.2. Under the terms of the Agreement, the protected enhancement for Saturday working as mentioned in 6.1 will cease with effect from 1 April 2013.

6.3. With effect from 1 April 2013, pay for hours worked on a Sunday as part of an employee’s normal working week will be at the rate of basic hourly pay enhanced by 50% (i.e. time and a half). This will replace the rate of the Sunday enhancement stated in the Council’s Single Status Agreement which will continue until 31 March 2013. Sunday hours are those worked between midnight Saturday and midnight Sunday.

7. Night Working

7.1. Currently night work is defined as being 7 pm to 7 am with payment for hours worked during these times as part of the employee’s normal working week being paid at an enhancement of 33% of basic hourly pay. With effect from the Implementation Date, the definition of night work in the Council’s Single Status Agreement will change to 8 pm to 6 am and the enhancement of 33% will only apply for hours worked between these times as part of the employee’s normal working week.

7.2. With effect from 1 April 2013 pay for night hours worked will be an enhancement of:

i) 20% of basic hourly pay for night hours worked Monday to Saturday and

ii) 50% of basic hourly pay for night hours worked on a Sunday.

7.3. For the sake of clarity, hours worked from midnight Saturday to 6 am Sunday and 8 pm Sunday to midnight Sunday are paid at the Sunday night rate enhancement. All other night hours are paid at the Monday to Saturday night rate enhancement.

8. Shift pay

8.1. With effect from the Implementation Date, shift patterns worked within Monday to Saturday 6 am to 8 pm do not qualify for shift payments. The rates of pay for shift working as stated in the Council’s Single Status Agreement remain unchanged.

8.2. This means that:

A 10% enhancement on basic pay will be paid for shifts where the period covered by shifts: is 11 or more hours; there are at least four hours between the starting times of the earliest and latest shift; the shift pattern is in place for at least 5 days a week; and at least 15 minutes at either end of a shift working pattern is worked outside the period Monday to Saturday 6 am to 8 pm. The earliest shift must therefore start at or before 5.45 am or the latest shift end at

or after 8.15 pm.

A 17% enhancement on basic pay will be paid for shifts where the period covered by shifts is 24 hours; shifts are worked on a rota basis; and the shift pattern is in place for at least 6 days a week

8.3. The alteration of existing shift patterns or the implementation of new shift patterns must be approved by the relevant Director before any new arrangements are implemented.

9. Car user allowances and mileage rates

9.1. With effect from the Implementation Date, the current criteria for essential car user status will be replaced by a compulsory car user criteria that:

i) Driving a car is an integral feature of the employee’s post and

ii) The employee is unable to carry out their post without providing and using their own car .

9.2. In order for the above criteria for compulsory car user to be satisfied those criteria must apply to all postholders undertaking the same post as the car user, it must be a condition of appointment to that post that the post holder provide and use their car for work purposes, and it must be a requirement of the post that a car user who becomes disqualified from driving would not be able to continue in that post.

9.3. With effect from the Implementation Date, only employees who meet the new compulsory car user criteria will be entitled to a car user allowance (also known as car user lump sum).

9.4. It is a management decision as to whether or not an employee meets the compulsory car user criteria. Employees who are designated as essential users and who do not meet the new compulsory user criteria will have their car user allowance stopped with at least one month’s notice. With effect from the Implementation Date and if authorised to use their own vehicle for work purposes, these employees will be able to claim mileage as a casual user.

9.5. The Council uses the National Joint Council for Local Government Services’s (also known as the Green Book) engine size bandings for determining car user allowances and mileage payments. The engine size banding are: 451-999 cc, 1000-1199 cc and 1200-1450 cc. With effect from the Implementation Date, the car user allowance and mileage payments in the two higher bandings will apply only to employees whose cars fall within the DVLA bandings A-E (for CO2 emissions). Employees whose cars fall outside these DVLA bandings will be

restricted to the car allowance and mileage payments for the lower engine size banding, irrespective of the size of their car’s engine.

9.6. Employees will be required to submit evidence of their vehicle emissions (e.g. the vehicle registration document) in order to claim the higher allowances, and to resubmit evidence on an annual basis (or when ever they change their vehicle if sooner) in order to continue receiving the higher allowances. Employees will also be required to submit their driving licence and insurance details on an annual basis or when ever they change their vehicle if sooner.

10. Leased car scheme

10.1. The Council’s leased car scheme closed to new entrants a number of years ago but has been protected for those employees in the scheme at the time of closure. Ending the leased car scheme is complicated by the agreements the council has to enter into with the car leasing companies and the cost to the Council of ending the agreements before their termination date. For these reasons a phased closure of the leased car scheme will take place as follows:

i) With effect from the date this agreement is signed no employee will be entitled to a new leased car hire agreement and the Council will not enter into any new leased car hire agreements with employees unless the Council has already placed an order with the car leasing company.

ii) Leased car hire agreements that are in place at the time this Agreement is signed will continue until 31 March 2012 unless ended earlier in accordance with the relevant leased car hire agreement.

iii) The leased car scheme will end for all employees with effect from 1 April 2012. With effect from this date any entitlement to a leased car contribution or the so called “cash equivalent” ceases for all employees. All such contributions and payments will cease with effect from 1 April 2012.

iv) With effect from 1 April 2012 all leased cars will be returned to the car leasing companies or purchased by the employee if agreed with the car leasing company. The Council will pay any early termination costs to the car leasing companies for the early return of vehicles. Employees remain liable for any excess mileage and/or excess wear and tear costs in accordance with their hire agreement.

v) Employees whose leased car hire agreement expires between the date this Agreement is signed and 31 March 2012 and who would otherwise be entitled to a new leased car agreement, will:

a) Transfer to the so called “cash equivalent” relevant to their grade with effect from the day following the expiry of their leased car agreement.

These employees will then be entitled to the cash equivalent until 31 March 2012 or the date their employment ends which ever is the earlier or

b) Subject to agreement by the Council and the car leasing company, retain their existing leased car through an extension of the existing arrangements until 31 March 2012

11. Pay protection

11.1. Pay protection refers to the practice of protecting an employee’s pay and/or their grade in the event that they are redeployed or transferred to a lower paid role usually because of business reorganisation, potential redundancy or ill-health. As stated in the Council’s Redeployment Policy and Procedure, it has been the Council’s practice for pay protection to be “time served”, meaning that the employee’s pay is fixed at current monetary value and erodes over time with pay awards.

11.2. With effect from 1 April 2011 pay protection will be limited to a period of one calendar year from the date an employee is appointed, transferred or redeployed into the lower paid role. For employees already receiving pay protection as at 1 April 2011, their pay protection will cease with effect from 1 April 2012.

11.3. This Agreement replaces the practice of marked time pay protection as stated in the Council’s Redeployment Policy and Procedure. The provisions in the Redeployment Policy and Procedure regarding the circumstances under which pay protection applies, that it is limited to a maximum of two grades and applies only to basic pay remain unchanged.

12. Calculation of redundancy payments

12.1. In calculating redundancy payments it has been the Council’s practice to use employees’ actual weekly pay rather than applying the statutory cap for weekly pay as allowed for in legislation. This practice will stop with effect from the Implementation Date (see paragraph 12.3 for transitional arrangements).

12.2. With effect from the Implementation Date, the weekly pay used for calculating redundancy payments will be determined:

a) In cases of compulsory redundancy, by reducing by 50% the amount by which an employee’s actual weekly pay exceeds the statutory cap e.g. with the statutory cap at £380 and an employee’s actual weekly pay at £500, redundancy pay would be calculated on a revised weekly pay of £440

b) In cases of voluntary redundancy, by reducing by 25% the amount by which

an employee’s weekly pay exceeds the statutory cap e.g. with the statutory cap at £380 and an employee’s actual weekly pay at £500, redundancy pay would be calculated on a revised weekly pay of £470

12.3. Transitional arrangements apply to employees who have been written to before the Implementation Date and either given notice that their employment is being terminated by reason of redundancy or informed that they are at risk of redundancy. These employees retain an entitlement to have their redundancy pay calculated on the basis of their actual weekly pay in the event that their employment in that post is terminated on grounds of redundancy and the effective date of redundancy is on or after the Implementation Date.

12.4. For the sake of clarity, the transitional arrangement mentioned in paragraph 12.3 applies only to the specific redundancy situation confirmed in writing to the employees before the Implementation Date. In the event that the employees are made redundant after 1 April 2011 in different circumstances, any redundancy payments will be base on the arrangements specified in paragraph 12.2.

13. Annual leave

13.1. With effect from the start of the 2011/12 leave year the maximum annual leave entitlement will be 30 days (pro rata for part-time employees and employees who do not work a five day working pattern). With effect from 1 April 2011 all employees whose full-time annual leave entitlement is more than 30 days will have their leave entitlement reduced to 30 days (pro rata for part-time employees and employees who do not work a five day working pattern).

13.2. The Council will introduce by no later than1 April 2012 an annual leave purchase scheme allowing employees the opportunity to buy up to ten days additional leave (pro rata for part-time employees). As part of these proposals the Extended Leave Scheme (also known as banked leave) will cease with effect from the Implementation Date. Employees who have leave banked under the Extended Leave Scheme do not lose this leave and are required to take it within four years of the original application. Any banked leave but not taken within the four years will be forfeited.

End

EQUALITY IMPACT FULL ASSESSMENT (EqIA)

SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EqIA)

1.1 Details of the Policy, Strategy, Function, Project or Activity Title of EqIA: Employment Based Cost Review

Date of EqIA: December 2010

State whether EqIA is on a Policy, Strategy, Function, Project or Activity or which combination of these: Policy

Indicate whether it is a ‘new’ or an ‘existing’ Policy, Strategy, Function, Project or Activity (Mark with a ‘X’): New [ X ]

Existing [ ]

1.2 Details of the person completing the EqIA

Full Name: Pamela Parkes

Position: Director – HR&OD

Department: Chief Executives Office

Telephone number: ext 47090

1.3 What is the aim and objective of the Policy, Strategy, Function, Project or Activity?

The council, like other local authorities, faces unrivalled financial pressures from reduced income and increase cost of providing and demands for services. Government measures to address the country’s economic deficit, most

APPENDIX 2

notably the 2010 emergency budget and the anticipated 2011-14 comprehensive spending review, means that the council has to prepare for a significant financial challenge. Combined with efficiency savings already identified, the council’s budget gap for next year is estimated to be in the region of £23m. Instead of reactive cuts across services, the council has decided to address the financial situation, through its transformation programme, Step Change Croydon, which will also fundamentally review and improve how services are delivered. One of the workforce dimensions of the Step Change Croydon programme is the need to keep payroll costs under control and at an affordable level. Greater efficiencies in employment costs are essential if the council is to continue delivering and prioritising services. Whilst reducing basic pay and headcount will decrease the overall pay bill and cannot be discounted as an option, it is the council’s preference to seek efficiencies in other areas of employment based costs and minimise the number of front line job losses The employment based cost review (EBCR) seeks to reduce workforce costs and vary terms and conditions.

SECTION 2: IDENTIFYING AND INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS 2.1 List the main stakeholders involved that have an impact on outcomes (see list in guidance for examples). Croydon Council Workforce – members, senior managers and staff Workforce Board Staff Groups HR&OD Trade Unions London Councils 2.2 How have you, or how will you involve your stakeholders? Identify which level of involvement is appropriate for each

stakeholder. STAFF – a mixture of Step Change road shows; intranet communications; articles in the Loop; staff briefings on

Information and Participation via:

CSR and EBCR; direct correspondence with staff; consideration of options by corporate management team; trade union consultation with members; setting up of EBCR phone support and frequently asked questions.

TRADE UNIONS (GMB, UNITE and UNISON): Consultation

It is the Council’s intention to introduce changes to terms and conditions of employment through established collective bargaining arrangements. Exploratory discussions took place in early 2010 followed by a formal period of consultation with trade unions through specially convened meetings and Corporate Staff Consultation meetings.

MEMBERS – a mixture of information and consultation

The Council Staff Partnership Panel (a Member, trade union and officer employee relations forum), Leadership for consideration and approval of options and Corporate Services Committee.

SECTION 3: ASSEMBLING AND ANALYSING EVIDENCE 3.1 Briefly summarise the main findings (positive and negative) from the evidence you have gathered through the

involvement of stakeholders listed above. A summary of the main findings from the consultation and involvement are set out below: From the Trade Unions (UNITE, GMB, UNISON): The trade unions are generally concerned over any proposals that reduce the terms and conditions of employment of their members. Whilst the proposals will apply equally across the workforce, the trade unions believe that the EBCR proposals will have a disproportionate impact on staff at lower grades and will impact indirectly and adversely on women. They also consider that the proposed changes to sick pay will impact more heavily on disabled staff and opposed any removal or alteration to national terms and conditions, especially those regarding sick pay (now dropped). Staff: All staff were invited to attend road shows held on the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review which included a briefing on EBCR proposals. Approximately 1000 staff attended the events held in November and December 2010 and a further 180 attended EBCR specific roadshows in February 2011. Views expressed at staff road shows and briefing sessions reflected an understanding of the impact of the economic downturn on local authorities and the need to reduce workforce costs. Opinions were often focused by personal impact and no overall consensus of how to reduce employment

costs was identified. There appeared to be a general view that an across the board reduction in basic pay would damage moral and create recruitment and retention difficulties. The proposals that generated most concern were those for incremental progression and reducing annual leave. Corporate Management Team The Corporate Management Team support the proposals to reduce employment costs and maximise flexibility in service delivery. CMT also favour the proposals applying across the workforce and in particular that those relating to incremental progression, redundancy pay, annual leave and sick pay should apply to chief officers even though they are excluded from the EBCR collective bargaining arrangements. Concern was expressed over applying a council-wide reduction in basic pay from, recruitment, retention and reputational perspectives. Members: Opposition Members have expressed concern that:

Any reduction in terms and conditions of employment would make the Council less attractive as an employer and there may be difficulties in attracting and retaining talent.

• Linking incremental progression more closely to performance risks creating a climate for discrimination if managers apply PDCS ratings subjectively rather than objectively.

• Reducing staff’s terms and conditions was a radical measure as opposed to other options that had might have a less direct impact on individuals and staff morale.

The current Administration acknowledge that reducing terms and conditions is difficult decision and is not one that it wishes to do lightly. It would prefer to reduce employment costs without reducing basic pay and welcomes any measures to increase the flexibility with which services can be delivered without increasing cost. London Councils: Feedback from London Councils generally was that authorities across London were reviewing their terms and conditions to help reduce employment costs. Common focus was on elements other than basic pay and car user allowances and mileage rates.

3.2 Briefly summarise the main findings from any research you have undertaken to assist you in assessing the impact, both positive and negative.

Incremental Progression The proposal is for staff to be eligible for incremental progression only if they receive an “excellent” rating in their annual assessment under PDCS and have headroom for progression i.e. are not at the top of their grade. The Workforce Profile for the period April – December 2010 includes an analysis of the 2010 PDCS ratings. Payroll data has also been analysed to determine the proportion of employees with potential for incremental progression (by not being at the top of their grade). Any significant disproportionate distribution of PDCS rating or in the potential for progression would indicate where the proposal may be discriminatory.

Equality Stream Staff Group Potential for incremental progression

PDCS rating of unsatisfactory, fair or

good Council wide 26% 92.5% Gender Female 25% 93.4% Male 23% 91.5% Ethnicity White 24% 91% BME 30% 94.5% Disability Disabled 14% 95% Non-Disabled 25% 92.5%

There is generally little variation between staff groups across the equality strands apart from disabled employees who are more highly represented at the top of their grade compared to non-disabled staff. Proposals to limit incremental progression will therefore have less impact on disabled staff. Analysis by age shows:

The distribution of excellent ratings by age tends to follow the age profile of the workforce with most excellent ratings (69.5%) being awarded to staff in the age band 41-60 who account for some 59% of the workforce.

A direct correlation between age and the potential for progression (by not being at the top of the grade). 60% of employees under age 25 are not at the top of their grade compared to 12% of those aged over 60. This is a reflection of the current time-served nature of incremental progression and the short length of time it takes to reach the top of the grade with only three spinal points.

A general consistency across the age bands of those receiving an excellent rating. Within the age bands 18-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60 and 61+ those receiving an excellent rating varied between 5.49% and 9.48%.

The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Moderation panels are proposed to strengthen the robustness of the PDCS rating process and marking consistency within and across departments. These panels will also help ensure that excellent ratings are awarded objectively, thereby reducing potential for discrimination. Overtime payments (initial proposal) The proposal is for overtime payments for staff at grade 11 and below to be reduced from 33% to 20% for Monday to Saturday working and from 75% to 50% for Sunday working. For employees at grade 12 and above, overtime payments are proposed to be abolished unless work is undertaken outside their substantive role. Applying the change in overtime proposals to 2009/10 payroll data show that the new arrangements would reduce the Council-wide overtime bill by 21.19%. Data analysis across the equality strands shows:

Equality Strand Staff Group % reduction in overtime Number of staff impacted

Council-wide 21.19% 829 Gender Female 17.42% 466 Male 25.17% 363 Ethnicity White 25.78% 433 BME 16.78% 296 Disability Disabled 26.99% 73 Non-Disabled 20.44% 744

No significant disproportionate impact of the proposals across gender, ethnicity or disability is apparent. Variation from the Council wide reduction of 21.19% is less than 6%. The proposals would have a more negative impact on male, white and disabled staff. The reduction in overtime for disabled staff of 26.99% is skewed by one employee in the sample who received a disproportionate amount of overtime in the period (£23,000). Removing this impact reduces the reduction in overtime for disabled staff to less than the Council-wide figure. The age groups which have a greater reduction in overtime than the Council wide figure of 21.19% are 41-45 (22.04%) and 56-60 (30.20%). The figure for the 56-60 age group is skewed disproportionately by the same employee as mentioned above. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Overtime payments (revised proposal) The revised overtime proposals are those as for the initial proposal (see above) with the exception that overtime hours worked by employees at grade 11 and below on a Saturday between 6 am and 8 pm are paid at plain time rather than at an enhancement of 20%. This is estimated to reduce the Council-wide overtime bill by 30.5% with the following impact across the equality strands shows:

Equality Strand Staff Group % reduction in overtime Number of staff impacted

Council-wide 30.50% 829 Gender Female 27.44 % 466 Male 33.77 % 363 Ethnicity White 34.41% 433 BME 26.99 % 296 Disability Disabled 35.57% 73 Non-Disabled 29.87% 744

Across gender, ethnicity and disability there is not any significant disproportionate impact from the proposals. The analysis shows that the proposals would have a more negative impact on male, white and disabled staff. Variation from the Council wide reduction of 30.5% is less than 3.5% apart for disabled staff where the variation is 5%. However, this figure is skewed disproportionately by one disabled person receiving £23,000 in overtime. Removing this influence reduces the percentage reduction in overtime for disabled staff to 26.75%, indicating that the proposal does not have any underlying disproportionate impact on disabled staff. The age groups 31-34 (31.34%) and 56-60 (38.64%) show a reduction in overtime higher than the council-wide reduction of 30.5%. The 56-60 age group figure is skewed disproportionately by the same employee mentioned above receiving £23,000 in overtime and after taking this into account the underlying figure for this age group is 34%. The age groups under 20 (24.81%) and 21-25 (23.11%) show the lowest reduction in overtime. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Weekend working The proposal is to remove the protected Saturday enhancement of 33% and reduce the enhancement for Sunday working from 75% to 50%. Applying the proposed changes in weekend working to 2009/10 payroll data show that the new arrangements would reduce the Council-wide pay bill for weekend working by 35.62%. Analysing the data for disproportionate impact shows:

Equality Strand Staff Group % reduction in weekend working payment

Number of staff impacted

Council-wide 35.62% 538 Gender Female 35.49% 349 Male 35.78% 189 Ethnicity White 35.79% 289 BME 35.29% 197 Disability Disabled 35.87% 48 Non-Disabled 35.59% 486

The proposal shows no disproportionate impact across. As for gender, ethnicity and disability, variation across the age groups, deviation form the Council-wide reduction is less than 1%. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Car user allowances The proposal is to re-define the qualifying criteria for essential car user allowances. It is not possible to analyse the impact of the proposals until departments have completed their assessment of staff against the new criteria. The current distribution of spend on car lump sum and mileage payments shows the following:

Equality Strand Staff Group % of combined spend (lump sum & mileage)

Workforce Profile (April – Sept 2010

Gender Female 49.89% 65% Male 50.11% 35% Ethnicity White 57.39% 57% BME 30.69% 37% Disability Disabled 7.45% 8% Non-Disabled 89.69% 82%

The current distribution shows a significant disproportionate impact on gender with 50.11% of Council spend on mileage and car allowances on men, who represent only 35% of the workforce. Although this may reflect a greater need for male occupied roles to use a car for work purposes, the assessment of staff against new criteria provides an opportunity to address any other influences. The distribution of spend on car allowance and mileage payments follows the age distribution of the workforce with no significant deviation from the distribution of employees within the age groups. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. This aspect of the EIA will need to be completed when departments have reviewed their staff against the new criteria. Redundancy pay Under current arrangements the Council calculates redundancy payments based on employees’ actual weekly pay and the statutory number of weeks’ pay determined by the employee’s age and length of service. Employment law allows for employers to cap weekly pay for these purposes at £380 (increases annually). It is proposed to use 75% of the difference between employee’s actual pay and the statutory cap in cases of voluntary redundancy and 50% in cases of compulsory redundancy. Applying the proposals will mean that employees whose weekly pay exceeds £380 will have their redundancy pay reduced compared to current arrangements. Of those earning more than £380 per week and therefore affected, 64% are women (workforce profile of 65%), 31% are BME (workforce profile of 37%) and 8% are disabled (workforce profile of 8%). The reduction in redundancy pay of higher earners will be proportionately higher compared to lower earners. Although it is not possible to anticipate the equality profile of employees being made redundant in the future, the Workforce Profile indicates that women, BME staff and disabled staff are generally less represented amongst higher earners. This would suggest that these staff are less likely to be adversely impacted compared to men, white staff and non-disabled staff.

Annual leave The proposals reduce annual leave to a maximum of 30 days. Staff currently receiving 33 days will loose 3 days leave (pro-rata for part-time staff). Of those employees loosing 3 days leave the only meaningful deviation from the representation in the workforce is for BME staff who are less adversely affected compared to white staff.

Equality Strand Staff Group % of staff with reduced leave

Workforce Profile (April – Sept 2010)

Gender Female 65.12% 65% Male 34.88% 35% Ethnicity White 56.22% 57% BME 29.16% 37% Disability Disabled 9.39% 8% Non-Disabled 89.27% 82%

There is less than 4% deviation from the workforce profile across the age bands. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. For employees who work annualised hours or term-time only, the reduction in leave could lead to a corresponding reduction in pay as annual leave is in effect “rolled up” into their pay. The reduction in pay will be avoided or mitigated by employees working the additional days. The impact on this is likely to be most significant in schools where non-teaching staff may have less flexibility to work the additional days. Reliable equalities data is not available for this group of staff although it known that non-teaching staff in schools are predominately female. Sick pay (withdrawn)

The proposal is to half the length of time that full sick pay and half sick pay is payable for. The Workforce Profile for April-September 2010 shows that disabled employees account for proportionately more sickness absence compared to their representation in the workplace. Disabled employees account for 8% of the workforce and 13% of overall sickness and 15% of long-term sickness. Otherwise sickness absence across the equality strands is generally proportional to their representation in the workforce. The proposals are anticipated to impact more harshly on disabled employee than non-disabled employees. Employees who suffer long-term absence (and who therefore may find their sick pay reduced under the proposed arrangements) will in many cases meet the definition of having a disability i.e. an impairment that has a long-term adverse affect on their ability to undertake normal day to day activities. If introduced, the proposals would be accompanied by a provision for the director of HR&OD to exercise discretion to extend sick pay on a case by case basis may help mitigate any disproportional adverse impact on disabled employees. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Shift workings (new proposal) It is proposed to redefine shift working criteria which will mean that shift patterns worked Monday to Saturday between 6am and 8pm do not qualify for shift payments. This will reduce the number of employees eligible for the 10% shift allowance. An analysis of employees’ shift patterns shows:

Of staff receiving 10% shift

allowance

Equality Strand Staff Group Before 1/4/11 After 1/4/11 Workforce

Profile (April – Sept 2010)


Gender Female 65.71% 64.86% 65% 161 Male 34.29% 35.14% 35% 84 Ethnicity White 47.35% 48.92% 57% 122 BME 45.31% 47.30% 37% 111 Disability Disabled 10.2% 10.81% 8% 25 Non-Disabled 89.39% 89.51% 82% 219

The proposal shows that there is no significant disproportionate effect across gender, ethnicity or disability. Redefining the shift bands from age perspective also shows no significant disproportionate impact. Any variation within an age band of employees receiving the allowance before and after 1 April 2011 is less than 3 %. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Night working (new proposal) It is proposed with effect 1 April 2013, to reduce the night working enhancement from 33% to 20% for Monday to Saturday working and from 75% to 50% for Sunday working. It is also proposed to redefine night hours as being 8pm to 6am instead of 7pm to 7am. Applying the proposed rates of enhancement to 2009/10 payroll reduces night working payments by 38.68%.

Equality Strand Staff Group % reduction in night working allowance (£)

Workforce Profile (April – Sept 2010)


Council wide 38.68% 463 Gender Female 38.54% 65% 301 Male 39.01% 35% 162 Ethnicity White 38.94% 57% 220 BME 38.52% 37% 201 Disability Disabled 38.53% 8% 419 Non-Disabled 38.69% 82% 40

Across the gender, ethnicity and disability equality strands there is a variance of less than 2%, suggesting that the proposal does not have any disproportionate impact. There is the same impact across the age bands which show a variation of less than 1% from the council-wide figure of 38.68%. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Pay protection (new proposal) It is proposed to change the Council’s current pay protection arrangements from a time-served basis (i.e. pay is protected at a fixed monetary value which erodes over time as pay attached to the employee’s post increases) to one where pay is protected for a period of one year. It is not possible to predict how future pay protection will apply across equality strands but the profile of staff currently receiving pay protection and whose pay protection will cease on 31 March 2012 is:

Equality Strand Staff Group Headcount of those Workforce Profile Number of staff

currently with protected pay

(April – Sept 2010 impacted

Gender Female 55.70% 65% 44 Male 44.30% 35% 35 Ethnicity White 51.90% 57% 41 BME 17.72% 37% 14 Disability Disabled 10.13% 8% 8 Non-Disabled 79.75% 82% 63

The proposal, will impact on male, white and disabled staff and those aged 46-50 (21% of those with protection against a profile of 16%) and 56-60 (19% of those with protection against a profile of 13%). Owing to the small number of employees receiving protection the data is of limited statistical significance across the workforce as a whole. The data available for religion/belief and sexual orientation of employees is not statistically meaningful owing to the large proportion of employees whose details are recorded as “none”, “other”, “prefer not to say” or “unknown”. Removal of leased car scheme (new proposal)

A phasing out of the leased car scheme is proposed with the scheme closing for all employees on 31 March 2012. The impact of the across the equality strands for the 68 employees with a leased car is:

Equality Strand Staff Group Headcount of those with a leased car

Workforce Profile (April – Sept 2010


Gender Female 33.82% 65% 23 Male 66.18% 35% 45 Ethnicity White 70.59% 57% 48 BME 23.53% 37% 16 Disability Disabled 4.41% 8% 3 Non-Disabled 95.59% 82% 65

The leased car scheme is historical recruitment and retention measure which was closed in 1998. Removal of the benefit will impact more heavily on men, white staff, non-disabled staff and staff in the age band 46-60 (83% of those affected against a workforce profile of 45%). It is likely that this reflects the workforce profile at the time the leased car scheme closed for new entrants. Continuing to operate the scheme has in effect created a preserved benefit that only long-serving employees enjoy. SECTION 4: JUDGING IMPACT AND PLANNING ACTIONS 4.1 Which of the following does the policy, strategy, function, project or activity work towards and briefly describe how: 1. Eliminating

discrimination? Removing discrimination is integral to the Council’s priorities and is embedded in the equalities and workforce strategies. The Council has made good progress in equalising pay through its single status agreement. Whilst the driver for EBCR is to reduce the workforce pay bill, it is also an opportunity to tackle some pay related benefits not touched by single status e.g. reassessing eligibility for car user allowances, closing the leased car scheme and removing pay protection.

The leased car scheme and the pay protection arrangements in the current climate of zero pay awards, represent indefinite protection pay/benefit. Such indefinite arrangements hinder moves towards equal pay and their removal can only help eliminate discrimination in pay.

2. Eliminating harassment?

The EBCR proposals are not specifically aligned to eliminating harassment. Strengthening of the PDCS process and consequential improvement in staff development may have an ancillary impact on eliminating harassment as the performance and competency of staff increases.

3. Promoting equality of opportunity?

The EBCR proposal to limit incremental progression more closely to staff performance through the PDCS will focus the need for greater robustness in the PDCS process. This and the proposed introduction of moderation panels will bring greater equality and consistency to staff appraisal and help maximize staff development and improve performance.

4. Promoting positive attitudes?

No specific impact.

5. Participation in public life?

No specific impact.

6. Promote good relations between different groups?

No specific impact.

4.2 From the evidence, gathered and analysed during the impact assessment process, which groups are/would impact

upon by this decision? Age

Positive Impact

Negative Impact

None Detail

0–18 years

Y None specifically identified.

19-35


36-65

Y Employees in the age ranges 46-50 and 56-60 appear to be disproportionately affected by the proposals to limit pay protection to one year. Removal of pay protection is however likely to help pay equality generally.

Over 65


Disability Positive

Impact Negative Impact

None Detail

Learning disability

Y The proposal to reduce the length of time sick pay was paid for may have impacted disproportionately on disabled staff. This proposal is not being taken forward.

Physical disability

Y As above

Mental health

Y As above

Deaf or hard of hearing

Y As above

Visually impaired

Y As above

Other, including carers

Y None identified.

Gender Positive


None Detail

Female

Y Y The proposal to reduce annual leave is likely to impact more on women than men by virtue of more women being likely to work on a term-time only basis in schools and having less flexibility to increase their hours to off-set a potential loss in pay (which is

equal to the loss of paid annual leave experienced by other staff). The proposals to limit pay protection and remove leased car scheme will impact favourably on women as the impact will be to remove male orientated benefits and have an equalising influence on pay in the wider sense.

Male

Y The proposals to limit pay protection and remove leased car will impact adversely on men compared to women (see above) as will the proposed re-definition of shift working.

Transgender

Y None specifically identified

Race Positive


None Detail

Asian

Y BME staff risk being impacted disproportionately (compared to white staff) from the de-definition of shift working. This has now been examined in more detail and as mentioned above, no significant disproportionate impact has been identified.

Black

Y As above.

White


Mixed


Other, such as Travelers


Religious/Faith Groups Positive


None Detail

Buddhist Y None specifically identified. Workforce data available is not

meaningful owing to 49% of employee’s religion/belief being recorded as “none”, “other” or “prefer not to say”.

Christian

Y As above

Hindu

Y As above

Jewish

Y As above

Muslim

Y As above

Sikh

Y As above

No religion/faith

Y As above

Other

Y As above

Sexual Orientation Positive


None Detail

Heterosexual

Y None specifically identified. Workforce data available is not meaningful owing to 40% of employee’s sexual orientation being recorded as “unknown”.

Lesbian

Y As above

Gay

Y As above

Bisexual

Y As above

Community Cohesion 2 Positive


None Detail

Community cohesion


Social and economic exclusion 3 Positive


None Detail

Social and economic exclusion

Y A significant number of employees live locally and therefore contribute directly to the social and economic prosperity of the borough. The EBCR aims to reduce employment costs as an alternative to reducing jobs. Whilst reducing the size of the workforce and redundancies over coming years is inevitable in light of the financial pressures faced, the EBCR should help mitigate these numbers.

4.3 Actions arising from the equality impact assessment

Equality Group4

Action (SMART) Intended Outcome Completion Date Lead Officer Lead Partner

All Groups

Complete assessment of staff against new car user criteria & update EIA.

For car user allowances to be allocated to staff fairly and in accordance with the new criteria. For allowances to be removed

31 March 2011 Judith Aldridge, EBCR project manager

Director of HR&OD

2 That which must happen in all communities to enable different groups of people to get on well together. This includes fostering strong and positive relationships between new and existing communities. 3 Persistent inequality of those who are social or economically excluded or marginalised and those living in poverty. 4 Enter in this column which of the equality groups that the action encompasses: race (r), disability (d), age (a), sexual orientation (so), gender (g), religion/belief (rb), social inclusion (si), cohesion (c)

from staff who do not meet the new criteria.

All Groups

Complete analysis of new shift proposals and update EIA.

To fully understand the impact of the new shift working criteria across equality strands.

31 March 2011 Judith Aldridge, EBCR project manager

Director of HR&OD

Gender Liaise with schools Forum to explore impact on schools support staff.

Establish flexibility for support staff in schools to mitigate potential loss in pay from reduced leave entitlement.

31 March 2011 Director of HR&OD

Director of HR&OD

All Groups

To promote managers/ staff commitment to equalities policies so that staff can see the benefit of disclosing personal data. Conduct personal data audit.

Improved data integrity for equalities monitoring purposes.

31 March 2011 Ali Sadik, HR&OD

Director of HR&OD

SECTION 5: RISK 5.1 If there are negative impacts identified, and the action does not completely remove the impact please detail

below, and add to your risk register? Risk/ issues

identified Action

required Resource

implications Timescales Lead Officer Expected

outcome Progress

The proposals by the nature of

Conduct an equal pay audit

To be determined

End of 2011. Colin Chadwick No significant pay disparity

Not started.

reducing employment costs have a

negative impact across the

workforce and consequently carry a risk of

legal challenge.

post implementation

of EBCR.

across the workforce.

SECTION 6: SIGN-OFF AND PUBLICATION 6.1 I agree with the outcome of the above EqIA and actions arising. Lead Officer

Name Colin Chadwick

Signature

Date

Lead Director

Name Pam Parkes

Signature

Date

Date sent to corporate equalities and cohesion team ([email protected])

THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CORPORATE EQUALITIES AND COHESION TEAM Publication Date (summary on website)

mailto:[email protected]

report to: corporate services committee 30 march 2011 ... · employment based cost review:...

Documents