 Ie dwi'n gofio ar yr hyn yn mynd i ninio. So rydyn ni'n mi rhywbeth ymlaen. Dwi'n rhaid i ei wneud. Ie ddim yn ei wneud y sefydlarr. Ie ddim yn ei ddweud y fellyodi sy'n Adrepthaloedd. Mae'n gyfnodau trafnolig Henry Bachelor, a i'n gweithio'r cyfnodau. Mae y gallwch i chi'n dwyran cou o'r ffordd i'r cyfnod? Ychydig i chi'n dweud bydd y cymryd yma. Felly yma'n gweithio'n dweud, gallwch chi ymlwg mor wrthoedd. at Auckland until the bottom of your screen and on your desk. The camera follows the microphone being switched on to counsellors and officers advised to wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up and can those participating in the meeting via the live stream indicate that you wish to speak via chat column please do not use the chat column for any other sound is indicating wish to speak please make sure that you are devices fully charged and that you switch your microphone off unless you're invited to do so please ensure the microphone is off yn cael ei fod ynングrif, lle ydych yn meddygiad wedi dweud o'u cyfnod o'r ddyliadol o'r ddigonol ac mae wedi ddiwch yn rhan o'r ddweud i'r ddweud am y ddweud yr hwn. Roedd eu gweithio, lle i wneud o'r cyfnod yn teimlo maes ers gwahanol a ddeddych yn myfio amdannu a'i ddweud o'r Rhys Llywodraeth. Mae ddyn nhw ar y ddweud o'u gweithiau. Roedd yn meddwl o'r ddweud a chazwch i'u fynyddoedd i'r gychwynol. ac mae'r ddod yn gwneud o'r ddweud o'r melysio, notify'r ddweud o'r ddod o'r melysio. Mae'n ddim yn brydu i'ch ddweud a ydych i'ch ei bobl arbennig o'r deall yn awr o cyfrifio'i gweithgrifol. Mae grennig yma bod sut mae'n cael ei chweithio i'ch ffotaf arall, ym gweithio arall o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r melysio'r ddod o'r sysym yn ddod, ac ydych chi'n ni'n gwneud o'r llen i ddod i'r hefyd o'r trofodau. Cymru mewn ganddur, rwy'n ddiddordeb i chi i gyd i ddim yn gynnwys. Mae'n ddiddor i chi gyd arweithio'r ddwaith i chi. Rwy'n ddiddor i chi gyd yn gyd, rwy'n ddiddordeb i chi gyd i chi gyd. Ac oeddwn i'n ganddur, Henry Batchelor, rwy'n ganddur Ylinson Ward, ac rwy'n ganddur y Ddiddor i'r ddiddor, i gyd i'r ganddur yn y ddwylliant. Yn ganddur Clare Dornton. Ydw i'n rhoi, mae'r Wilson cynghwladau, ac mae'r Rhannau gyda Fend응 yn cyfrifolio'n cefnodi. Rwyf wedi bod, yn cyrraed hon yn ysgol, processingo newydd o'u cynghwlad a'r Rhannau? Ryf bod yn cyrraed, mae'n roi cefnodi, ac mae'r Rhannau yn cyrraed wedi dyfodol. Mae'r cynghwladau ar y sefydling, yw'r CEO, felly mae'r Cynghwlad. Mae'r Merthyrd, mae'r Merthys, mae'r Murdoedd, a'r magnetfyniad ac'r catwrrfawr. Ch particular yn ysgol, mae'r Hefyddi Williams. is unavailable today, so I believe we have two other officers. Firstly, Jonathan Corbett, are you there Jonathan? Hello, yes, so Jonathan Corbett, Hr Advisor. All right, thank you very much and also Donya Taylor. Yep, Donya Taylor, Hr Advisor. Thank you very much. So, we'll start with the agenda then, members, those are all their housekeeping, so I think we'll start with item number one. Apologies. Oh, sorry, Yn Ysgrifennid, neu ydych chi'n gwneud? Yn Ysgrifennid, neu'r Ysgrifennid, neu'r Ysgrifennid, neu'r Ysgrifennid, neu'r Ysgrifennid, neu'r Ysgrifennid, neu'r Ysgrifennid, neu'n Ysgrifennid. Rydw i'n ysgrifennid, mae'n gynhawn. Dyma hwn o'r plwych sy'n gyflawn o'r number 2, ymdrychol o'r ffordd yng nghylch, i'w gofio eich gweithio i chlyw, o'r ymdrych a'r ymdrych. I can't see any, so we'll take that as no, and then we'll move on to item number three minutes of the previous meeting, which begin on page one of the agenda, members that were present at the meeting. Are there any glaring errors or emissions here? Okay, so we'll take those as a true record, and we'll move on to the items on the agenda, which is item number four, the disciplinary policy review. Donya, I believe you're presenting this, is that right? Unfortunately, no. The disciplinary policy review is from another HR advisor. I've not got that prepared for today. Apologies on that. I have a summary that I spoke to Chloe Whitehead, who is the HR advisor, which revised the policy. I have a short statement to accompany that, if I may read it. Sorry, I wasn't clear. So you're going to read out a statement from another officer who prepared the report, is that right? I've got a summary of the changes that were made, and the reasons for them, if that would be helpful perhaps. That would be, but if any members have any questions about the report, presumably there's no one here we can ask those of. I would certainly be happy to speak to Chloe afterwards and get her to my feedback, but if you prefer that Chloe to be here to answer those questions, she's not here today. So obviously, we're being asked to approve this document today. Obviously, if there's any questions of clarity that we need clarified before this is approved, we're going to struggle without some assistance from officers, I'm afraid. So I'll say what, if you read out the report, you read out the introduction that you have from Chloe, and obviously if there are any questions of clarity, we'll have to make a decision about what to do about that afterwards. If you want to press on, Jonathan. Thank you. So the disciplinary policy was reviewed by Chloe Whitehead and the HR team. The summary of the main changes are as follows. The policy has been brought in line with the new council structure, so the references to old terminology in terms have been reviewed so it's updated so it reflects how the council is currently arranged. One of the main changes is that we've moved from four disciplinary levels to three to reduce confusion and align processes. It should help to provide a more consistent approach and support managers to make outcome decisions more easily. And further, we have an update to the list of proposed offences under each level of the new disciplinary policy. These are guidelines only, but will help manage to decide what a level an offence sits at if they need to decide that as part of their investigation. So I'd like to obviously invite any questions that anyone may have, but that's the conclusion of the summary. OK, thank you very much. Obviously I appreciate this isn't penned by yourself, but if you do your best in answering the questions for us, that will be appreciated. We do have a question from Councillor Howell first of all. Thank you Chairman. Chairman, if you don't mind our turn to page 18 and the level of offences is what I'm interested in. So if for example you go mind your offences and you have very helpfully, but also I don't know how helpful these will be, failure to observe confidentiality. But if I was to break a confidentiality, shall I say in my opinion a minor way, that would be a level one. So I was to say something which in all intents and purposes is quite small, but also failure to observe confidentiality could be quite catastrophic for the organisation or for an individual. Now would that be gross mistonged under level three or does that still stay under level one? Where does something like that go? And why do you think of that? I've just been up a failure to record hospitality. It's one thing for a housing officer to have a box of chocolates because they've helped somebody with regards to a particularly tricky situation which helps, which always happens and they record that. It's another thing to accept a holiday in Barbados because they've done something as well. So I'm trying to look at the nuances of what happens here. Thank you Chairman. Thank you. So I suppose I think the question is sort of who determines or what determines the level of offence of each of these items. So what would be the criteria for determining what a level three breach of confidentiality would be compared to a level one and the same question around levels of hospitality received? I don't suppose, is there a response there? I think I could answer that. Yes, I think that in terms of obviously their guidelines, but the way that it would be looked at is every investigation would be approached with, you know, without any preconceptions of the outcome. We'd want to look at whether they're perhaps a breach of confidentiality might have been accidental or it could have been deliberative. It's something that someone has done deliberately. That would sit for me if I was advising an investigator manager at a higher level than something that perhaps might be accidentally. So we'd want to take into account all of the circumstances of a particular case and I think that would apply for both of those elements of both of the things that have been raised about hospitality and for confidentiality breach of that. OK, so it will be a subjective decision made by the decision maker who's judging how severe the offence is. I think it would need to be based on all other policies. It's obviously just, we would need to look at what policies we currently have in place in each of those areas and see, you know, how somebody followed those, the things that we currently have in place, the guidelines or has somebody completely acted outside of that and has completely disregarded it. That would also take it a high level as well. OK. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, and I'm sorry I'm putting you into an awkward position here, but I just think I'm always very uncomfortable with these type of situations. So, for example, in Serious 2, I can cause damage or injury to a personal property and that is a level 2, which is bullet point 4, and then under gross misconduct, fighting or assaulting is obviously gross misconduct. And it's just, I find these difficult sometimes, and I suppose my question is, coming back, you said that the person who decides what level this is, is that then the decision maker with regards to the outcome of any disciplinary procedure that takes place on that individual? For that reason, that person is like the judge on the jury then, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. What would happen in that sector? The investigating manager would make a determination based on the policy and HR advice. It would then be presented to a hearing manager, to someone at the higher level, a more senior manager, and they would present that case to that more senior manager who would make the decision in line with the policy and HR advice. In both cases, the HR advisor for the hearing manager and the investigating manager would be separate people. So there would not be any conflict there. Thank you very much. In essence, there's two levels of decision making before anything goes forward formally. That's correct. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you. I'm just wondering if some additional wording might help with the potential conflict there. So a minor offence could be classified as accidental. It's particularly confidentiality if it was accidental, and then you could have a higher level if it was deliberate, because we can see the words, deliberate acts of theft, deliberate or malicious, serious damage. So whether we need to replicate that in relation to confidentiality, because I think that's something that is really important, particularly the organisation that we are, means that we have a lot of people's personal data and casework and things like that. That's my first point. My other is on, I'm going to count the bullet points, I'm sorry, one, two, three, four, five, six, a serious misconduct to be bullying or harassing a member's staff or the public. I would be inclined to think that that is gross misconduct. So I'm wondering why that's down as a serious misconduct to a level two, not a level three, because it might not necessarily be physical, but we know that we should be, and we are supposed to be committed to stamping out bullying, so I would expect to see that at the highest level. Thank you, Chairman. I think there's two questions there. So the first one being, is it worth trying to classify the levels of breach within each level, so if there's a minor level of confidentiality breach compared to a gross level of confidentiality breach, and I suppose that would be the same for all the offences listed in the document. And I think the second question is whether how strongly we rate bullying or harassing members of staff or the public. I think there's a question about whether that should be gross or serious misconduct. Do you have any comments there? I would certainly take that back to Chloe to clarify exactly where something would sit. I think that we have, the disciplinary policy would not stand on its own just for issues of bullying and harassment. We've also had the dignity of work policy as well, and that would help us to clarify a nature of offence. So it wouldn't just be that, but I'm happy to clarify why something is classed as a, you know, a lower level rather than being just gross misconduct. A question was slightly different in that. Is there anything to stop us today, since we're looking at this policy, in moving the bullying and harassment and member of staff or the public as councillors? Do we have the ability to move that into a level three, or is it something that's governed by us? Because if so, I would like to move that it goes to a level three. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. So I'll ask officers first then, what are your views then on moving one of these items from level two to level three breach? I'll ask that question first. I think I suppose from the perspective of making something that would be a gross misconduct offence, that's automatically gross misconduct and that somebody could be dismissed for it, that always would carry a more significant risk for the councillor as an employer. If we were to be challenged at that in an employment tribunal. So there's an element of that and I don't want to prejudge why something is at that certain level, but that would be something that we'd certainly want to consider whether such a move resulting in somebody being dismissed could result in a higher risk for the councillor as a whole. That would be the one thing that comes to my mind just looking at how that would be phrased. Yeah, and actually I've just sort of read on into the level three's gross misconduct and I see there is a point in there, repeated or severe bullying or harassment of a member of staff or public. So I think there are actually two definitions, one in level two, one in level three. Is that better? Is that clarifying? Personally I think bullying and harassment is not acceptable on any level or form. So for myself there is no distinction. People are bullied to the point of suicide sometimes and what that's, what one person can see as a minor thing. So it needs stamping out so that's my preference would be to just have it at level three. Bullies should be dismissed. Councillor, how are you? On a different matter entirely, right? Okay. Councillor John Williams, please. Thank you chair. I think Councillor Heather Williams is missing the point of this, to be honest. This policy has been drawn up with regard to a number of issues. List of which is experience as well as legal and HR expertise. And these are examples. It says in the document, no, these are examples only. And I think Councillor Heather Williams is trying to be very prescriptive and to sort of tie us down to a policy which restricts our ability to be able to take each case on its merits or on its evidence. This is not the purpose of this disciplinary policy. This disciplinary policy is to broadly set out the ways in which this council will pursue disciplinary matters. It's not to actually be prescriptive and instruct officers what they should do at each point in a disciplinary process. It is very subjective. It always has to be subjective. And therefore, that is why there has been an attempt here to indicate to us the levels, the sorts of misconduct that would be considered in each of the levels. But it doesn't mean that it will be definitely that level that will be pursued for that particular misconduct. Because every incident has to be judged independent and we should be giving officers as much leeway as possible within the disciplinary process to enable them to take forward the correct disciplinary action to be taken for a particular event. So I would not agree to make any amendments to this. Thank you. Opportunity to come back? I think we can say Heather Williams is the same response. Thank you. Moving it from level 2 to level 3, it says action may need to dismissal. We're not being prescriptive in that that's the only thing. It all gets judged from the case by case basis. Nothing would change in that. But as you say, it gives more leeway and it gives a message that actually there are some cases of bullying which we do not consider as serious enough to be gross misconduct rather than give you a clear message that we are against bullying of any kind. I don't think we should be having a policy that gives leeway to bullying personally. If it's level 3 as a classification and just left there, it will still be investigated. People still have to go through that case by case process. It's not about taking away or people unjustifiably being dismissed. And a level 3 does not necessarily mean dismissal either. But I think to declassify it as it's been and to give a signal, the bullying and harassment is a level 2 offence, is completely inappropriate and is not acceptable. So I still maintain it should be level 3 only. And then those case by case might show that it's not. But I don't want to give any leeway. Thank you. I will continue with the debate and obviously I'll come back to see if you do want to move that. Is it Councillor Howe? Councillor Howe, please. Thank you Chairman. Chairman, I'm on a completely different matter. Chairman, so there's two issues. With regard to page 24, the suspension during investigation. There's a term of phrase here which although understandable does raise certain alarms here, the final paragraph. The HR team must be consulted for an individual suspended from work. Remember the HR team should also have that present at the suspension meeting. That's fine. Where due to service reasons this is not possible. So does that mean if somebody's position is so vital that we can't suspend them or what? The first paragraph says if the HR should be present, should be present. So I understand that. If you've got to suspend somebody and the HR is not present, that's fine. So then the second part seems to be either duplicated or say, and I might be reading this wrong. Sometimes we can't suspend somebody because of their job is so vital. I'm not quite sure on that paragraph. That's what I want a bit of clarity on. Okay, so I'll go on to my next point if you don't mind. Thank you. So on the page 25 before 10 the disciplinary and the paragraph above. It says that it is likely the manager will not be able to inform the visual of all the details surrounding the reason for suspension. Well that seems a little bit unfair that you don't know all the reasons you've been suspended. I think that's a bit, you know, you've been suspended but I don't know why. I mean, so that I find unfair. And then if you turn over onto page 26, all parties will be involved. Sorry, the second paragraph down on page 26. Supporting documents must be available to all parties involved. No less than three working days before the date of the meeting. So the HR will have knowledge of everything for however long it takes before the hearing. Maybe a week or two weeks, however long. But the actual individual who has been suspended or not been suspended but is still up for disciplinary won't know until three days before what is actually all the documents and when they'll actually be told. I think that's an imbalance that we need to look at and which is incorrect. Thank you, Chair. I think there are three questions there, Jonathan. So the first one on the bottom of page 24, just some clarity around the final paragraph. Page 25, again, some clarity around the manager not being able to inform individuals of the details of a suspension. Just a bit of explanation around that would be useful. And then, again, the reason for the perceived imbalance between the Human Resources Department and the party involved in the amount of time the documents are made available to both on page 26. So, yeah, anything you can do to help clarify those would be useful. Thank you. I think in relation to the first question about where suspension isn't possible, I would need to clarify on the wording because it may just be that it's the way in which it's worded. That gives that impression. So I want to be absolutely clear on that. So I understand exactly why it's praised in that way. In relation to the second question about the manager not informing the individual all the reasons for suspension. I think because at the time that somebody is suspended, the investigation may not have been fully completed. It's something that will be at the very start because the reason we were to spend someone is there's the potential risk of such an event happening again or the event that they could potentially disrupt an investigation. So that's why we would say, I would say that we'd give someone the reason that we're doing an investigation and be able to state the reason for it. But then we would obviously follow up with written confirmation with the allegation after that. And then in relation to the point 26 about the all that the documentation is available to the party three days before, I believe that that's currently the that hasn't changed from the previous policy. That's what it was. That's what we've been working to under the under the previous version. I think that we would only ever in terms of sometimes it's only possible to get the information done a certain time three days is the time that we would give somebody a notice for any meeting and that you know certainly an investigation meeting would be would be three days and because it's a During the course of formal hearing, the packing information would always be sent to them at least five days beforehand as well. So I think that, you know, if it's a case that we need it, there's a recommendation to bring everything in line because you want to give somebody at least five working days beforehand. That's something we can certainly look at. Chairman. Thank you Chairman. With regards to page 24, the last paragraph, thank you for looking at that. With regards to page 25, the final paragraph, I understand where you're coming from. I might not agree with that, but I understand where you're coming from. But with regards to the three working days, then I suppose my question is, can you guarantee me that both sides will only have three working days? Because otherwise it seems to be unfair that the HR department had or have knowledge of or been to work on this for quite a while. And then shall we say the word defendant, the member of staff who's been suspended or has only got three days. I don't think it's an equal, I think it should be equal, that's all I'm asking. Or the member of staff has given a longer period of time. I mean, if you've both got three days, then okay. But you know, all the members of staff should be given more period of time to prepare for what could be a loss of job at the ultimate penalty. Any thoughts there, Johnson? I think that sometimes because of the course of investigation, the HR department might not have all the information until fairly late in the investigation. As soon as all that information is to hand, the employee will be sent a copy, whether that's the report and all of the other evidence. So, you know, because the investigation is ongoing and we'll collect evidence throughout of it, we wouldn't necessarily have everything the employee sees until pretty much the same time that the employee sees. So I don't know if the, you know, the difference in timing would be significant. I'm so sorry, Chairman. You know when the hearing is going to be, you should have the waiting point. I think three days is too short. I'm asking for a level playing field for the member of staff, that's all I'm asking for. And I think a couple more days because it's not only then the member of staff, they might have to get a union official in. They might have to get another member of staff to come in to support them. They might have to get other people in witnesses. I don't know what they want to do, but I just think three days is a short period of time for them. They might have to call somebody who's not a Southam's employee who then has to take time off work and maybe that's not possible. So I just think the three days is too short of a period. Chairman, I think this is a consultation document. Is that correct? Is this a final, are we consultation on this? I think we've been asked to approve the changes to this document. Yeah, well on that particular one then I'm asking for a change. I'm asking for five more things. Okay, okay. Okay, Donia, did you want to come in? Yeah, I just wanted to add what Jonathan's already mentioned. In terms of the disciplinary policy, everything that Chloe has put in and tried to align does match up to the ACAS guidance. So with regards to disciplinary meetings and things like that. So the three days notice is something that is the standard practice. I hear what you're saying in terms of there's a potential imbalance where you may have an employee knowing little information until late on in the game and then what can they do to defend themselves in that kind of terminology. What I would say is if for instance you were to arrange a disciplinary meeting and if we're looking at the worst case scenario, which could be gross misconduct and if the employee again worst case scenario was suspended and then was only given and was given notice of the meeting at the time is specified in the policy. If they were to then get the letter and know that the meeting is happening and if they wanted to bring someone and that person wasn't able to make it, then they would then communicate that to the person that's hearing the meeting. And we would then look at either alternative representation, so whether or not it would be like a written representation from another person or whether or not we would look at rearranging the day. If an employee said actually I really need to make you aware of this and I can't do it because it's too short notice for the meeting to happen, I would say unless you're talking about a meeting that's been rearranged on like four or five separate occasions already that the council would take the, it would be giving the employee the benefit of the doubt in order to mitigate the risk from a employment law point of view. I don't know if that helps kind of clarity. I completely hear what you're saying in terms of the imbalance and I understand that, but what I wouldn't want to say is with the union agreements already being given I understand and the guidance meets the ACAS guidance, so if we were to look at it being five days that would be more generous and that's all I would say. I hope that helps to explain it. Thank you, Chairman. I've got me a tenner. Sorry about that. Donna Marine, you just cost me £10. I'll speak to you soon. I've got my daughter. Thank you, Chairman. Sorry about that. I do apologise. I understand that. Thank you very much indeed and I'm sure there is a sensible solution to many of these situations, especially if somebody couldn't make it. It's just what concerns me. I think the biggest thing that concerns me is that, and it's already been explained by Jonathan, how when somebody is suspended sometimes they're not given the full reason and then all the documents can be prepared and given to them with three days before. So only then do they find out three days before the hearing what the whole reason is that they've been suspended or not suspended but there will be a hearing about their behaviour. So that's what I'm concerned about. They've only then got three days to prepare because only then do they find out exactly why they were going to a disciplinary panel. And that is my concern. Now I understand that I can't see it. Maybe you could point that out to me where it says that this is following ACAS or discussion with the unions, but that is my particular bug on this one. Thank you, Chairman. I will take the other speakers but obviously there have been a few requests for changes so I will come back to those both at the end but I will carry them with the other speakers. Did you want to come in on that point, Councillor? On the points that Councillor Howell has made, I mean, as quite right has been said by the officer that this follows ACAS and also follows the agreement that we have with the trade union and also if we have to be mindful that if it was unreasonable, if we did give the defendant unreasonable time that that would then be taken into account should it go to a tribunal so we wouldn't wish to do that. But three days, I understand where you're coming from but it is what has been agreed. It was the policy of this council. This is not something that's been changed. It's not part of the document that's been changed. But it's certainly an agreement that we have with the trade union and with ACAS guidance. So to put something else there could jeopardise this going forward. So I wouldn't want to do that. And on the other point about suspension, I interpret this as the HRT not being present due to service reasons. Not the individual being suspended due to service reasons. The paragraph in which it sits talks about the HR team being consulted and the member of the HR team being present at the suspension meeting where due to service reasons this is not possible. The HR person cannot be at that meeting rather than not suspending the person. That's how I read it. I think I was told it was changed and that's my concern. I think it was. I think that's what Jonathan said but I'm not going to hold him to that. Very quick bit of clarity. The three days was that already in the existing document or has that been changed for this document we're looking at today? That was in the existing document. OK. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. OK. I'm going to move on now so Claire. I want you to be very patient. Thank you. Thank you. Well actually my first question was to do with that. I think it would have been helpful if we had a list of what had been changed from the existing document to this document and I think it would still be helpful to have that. That's my first point. I'm leading on from that. On page five it says that the disciplinary policy has been changed to take account of new ways of working. Now I'm not sure if it does take account of the post COVID ways of working and I just like some assurance on that. Does it really has that been factored in? For example on page 18 I'm looking now and of course I can't find the actual point but it mentioned somewhere about lateness or persistent lateness. How are we measuring that with home working and increased flexibility? So it's a rather general point but I'd like some reassurance that the new post COVID working arrangements have been taken into account in the review of the policy. One of the officers wants to respond. Jonathan? In terms of the different ways of working and post COVID obviously one of the things that has been introduced relatively recently is our new HR system. So that we allow employees to record their time directly onto the system. So managers have the ability to, based on contact to monitor what the hours that the employees working and I think the message that has come out from different officers, senior officers within the council was very much whilst people are working from home we do take that upon the hours that are recorded on trust but if there are any issues with regards to being able to get hold of officers or not being able to contact them at the times that they say they are available then I think that we would, that would be the circumstance in which such a consideration of lateness would be brought on and investigated under the policy. Does that answer your question? Well yes it does but I would actually like some reflection of that in this paper both in the policy itself and in the introduction that we have assurance that that has been taken into account. I think that was just a comment Jonathan. Councillor Hart please. Thank you Chair, thank you. I've really enjoyed reading this document, I must admit and I feel pleased to see that it's been reviewed very mind it was last year or new one in 2012. So I've got a few things and some of them are very very small. First one is page 13. Just for consistency I noticed that the spelling of a fence there is with an S and when later on it's with a C when they talk about offence and offences so I just think the consistency that might be helpful. Oh sorry. Can you hear me now? Thank you. Did you catch that? No it's fine, it's more for the benefit of the people not here. Apologies, apologies. So it's page 13 so I'm just looking at the differences of that word. I was looking at page 15 and the last but one paragraph investigating managers and the HR team are able to reject a supporting colleague choice if they believe there is a potential conflict of interest and fine with that or that the choice is inappropriate. I don't really have shared meaning with the term inappropriate and I'm just wondering if there might be why a person might be deemed inappropriate. Are you looking? It's the last but one paragraph on page 15, daunting investigating managers. Donna? Yeah I can answer that one. So the chances of it ever happening is so minute and rare it really doesn't happen often. The example that I can give you is that you might have a member of staff and they might have a member of their family might also be a member of the trade union and be a supporting colleague in that context and the employee might want that individual to support them and we might deem that that relationship is more of a familial relationship and you wouldn't have a family member supporting you in a meeting you would only have a trade union or a trade union representative supporting you so it would be in that regard but I don't think it's happened the whole time I've been here in the last four years but it's written in the policy to say that it may happen equally if for instance you were doing a disciplinary investigation and potentially looking at suspension and the employee wants to bring someone along who might then be a witness in the investigation again it's really difficult to go through a hypothetical situation but that would be another example where perhaps we might say well actually we're going to be speaking to you individually and therefore you will need to find an alternative person but it would be quite rare. Is that clarifying for you? Yeah I just wondered if it might then be worth putting that in as an example eg a family member or a witness to the evidence. Is it possible to feed that back please officers? Yeah Britannia. Okay thank you. Just a couple more if that's okay. On the page 18 under the offences so level one and level two again quick tap forth some sort of potential duplication but the third point down on level one says failure to record hospitality and then the last but one on level two says accepting hospitality without declaring and they sound like the same to me. Again I think this goes back to one of the points of making the start brand subjectivity so again I will ask officers to clarify that if that's the right understanding. Yes I think it is trying to make the distinction between the different levels and it's not intended to describe every single scenario but yeah I take what you mean and it's similar but perhaps something could be declared much much later than it had been or I'm trying to think of a scenario but I can't think of a current and live example of that on my head unfortunately. If we move on I think Councillor Williams wanted to come back on that point. I was just going to say from a member's point of view that one of the examples may be that you can be offered hospitality of which you do need to record that you've been offered even if you've not accepted it so I think that's the difference so for example you can be offered a trip to Barbados if you don't tell somebody that's a minor offence if you do accept it and not tell anyone I think that's the distinction it is how it is for councillors anyway. Is that a fair scenario there in relation to officers? Jonathan? Yeah I believe so. Okay thank you for the help. Councillor Hart? Yes thank you councillors. On page 24 like councillor Mark Howell and councillor John Williams I've now gone to that last paragraph and read it in both ways so I think that definitely needs to fair me up. I think in thinking about it now it's probably what you were saying Councillor Howell because it says that final where due to service reasons this is not possible HR should be informed as soon as possible thereafter and I imagine HR would already know if a member of the team couldn't be present so I think it is but I think that needs wording so it's clearer and I'm thankful. One more? Yeah. That's alright. And it's to do with the disciplinary hearing on page 25 and I'm just wondering when it says that the names of any witnesses to be called that they will be named to the person I couldn't find any else in terms of the support for witnesses if you know that you're going to be a witness and you're going to be called and that the person who is called the offences is going to know that you're a witness what might that feel like for the witness? I'm not sure I understand the point. So the point is in terms of the notification of disciplinary action the person who the disciplinary action is being called against will know that the names of the witnesses who are going to appear and I'm just wondering what happens for the witnesses in terms of support for them in those days before if the person isn't suspended and it's just a comment I mean I'm mindful that this is a cast of guidelines anyway but I just really wanted to So your question is about confidentiality? Yeah well I guess I'm thinking about what the support is for employees this document and if you think you're going to be asked to witness something and obviously the person knows you're going to be a witness just what is the support mechanism for those people. Okay I don't understand. Offences is there any comments on that? Yes we do have the support I think as part of the policy the clause and the intention is in relation to the person being investigated if somebody has questions about the disciplinary process and what to expect as a witness that's an investigation a hate child seems present to be able to explain that and to outline what will happen in terms of how things were going we would be here as a way to guide someone about what to expect and any other questions they might have about the process so there would always be support for a potential witness to an investigation between the time that they're called or invited to attend to the day of the hearing itself Does that add some reassurance? I have got one more though and it's really to do with readability and I think this is the first time it comes up on page 28 page 28 I believe and it refers to again the last but one paragraph please refer to the council statement policy in relation to discresions under the LGPS which I'm assuming is the local government pension scheme so I'm just wondering I don't think that term has been used earlier on in the document just if that could do I think it's just a comment around explaining acronyms at the first point they appear in the report if that's possible Thank you Any more? Thanks very much Any further speakers? No, okay So I said I'll come back to the proposed changes that were asked for earlier so we have no more speakers Chairman, with your permission may I make a suggestion? Yes We've got quite a number of things here so can we say that this could come back to us and we could have a bit of more clarity on some of the points and some of the issues that we've raised and therefore we can hopefully pass it on the next week I don't have an issue with that immediately I just want to ask officers is there a time scale around this does this need to be approved before a certain date or would it be possible to bring this back with some of the amendments that we've discussed today? I think it would be possible for it to come back we have the current policy in place at the moment it's not got an inspiring date on it so yeah Okay, I will ask the committee members what is the feeling here would people like to bring this back with the amendments and comments taken on board that we've made today or is everyone happy to proceed and make a decision on this today? Anyone has any thoughts? Councillor Heather Williams Thank you I think it's sensible for it to come back because particularly on one of the points it's about the wording and it being a bit ambiguous so maybe subjective so it would be good to see see what wording it is to make sure that it does clear up all of our concerns so I would be supportive of of bringing it back as it's not time limited Councillor John Williams I'm quite happy for you chair to take to discuss this with the officers and to ensure that the changes that the members want are taken on board and leave it with you to publish rather than wait another three months to come back to this committee Chairman, I would be happy to second that proposal With you on the vice chair could you both work in an urge in your allowance or the balls in our court then Okay, well if everyone Yes indeed If there's no aversion to that then we'll take that as the decision please if that's okay We're not making a decision on this today but we're going to send the report back for the comments to be taken on board and then it will be signed off providing we're content by myself and the vice chair, Councillor Dawn Plansman I think it's only one issue where we seem to be in agreement on most things other than one that I've raised I don't know how you want to handle that Okay, I'll tell you what We'll take that now so Councillor Heather Williams made a proposal earlier in the meeting regarding the bullet points and some changes regarding the various levels You just want to explain that again please Councillor, what exactly you're proposing Yeah, we so there was two areas, one was on confidentiality that we put some distinction between accidental and deliberate because we can see that the gracious conduct is in other places it's being classed and deliberate and it hasn't all been on a confidentiality basis and the other one was the removal of bullying and harassment at level 2 and that that it should just be the level 3 offence that says bullying so I'm looking for the next bullet it's on here, on the other side isn't it but it says to be a, it's a basic take out the word to be a repeated or severe bullying Yeah, to just be bullying Okay, so we have a Okay, do you have a seconder for those proposed changes? I think that's me I don't know Okay, Member, so we have a proposal in front of us to essentially remove the bullet point around bullying and harassment from level 2 I will ask Councillor Williams John Williams, sorry if he has any thoughts I'm asking not to accept that, I'm mindful I did not want us to I mean this is a document that has been approved by the trade unions it follows ACAS we are dealing here with examples I would not want us to make any fundamental changes and I believe that particularly the bullying is a fundamental change to this document I don't believe that we ought to do that because it could compromise our officers so I would rather we stick with what is here as I say it meets ACAS and follows a best practice of ACAS and also has been agreed by the trade unions and therefore I think we should not make that change Okay, thank you Councillor Chairman, with your permission may I suggest that this particular matter be dealt with outside the committee and see if yourself your Vice-Chairman and Council Williams and maybe HR can come to some sort of compromise on this other than just saying it can't have come off because maybe a small amendment on either side which I think would take too long for us all to think about could resolve this issue I would like some serious HR input into that as well I mean I'd be content with that to take that particular point away so I would like some serious HR input into this as well from a legal standing as well so presumably you'll be removing your proposal there to alter it now Yeah, I think an alteration so it has my support so long as it's altered and there will also shortly be a meeting of the anti-bullying path of this group which perhaps I need to declare that I chair if you want to attend that to discuss this, I'd be happy for that to happen Thank you very much so I think the decision there is we'll send this report we won't agree the report today or make a decision on it at least we will defer it for some minor amendments minus the points we've just discussed and then which the eventual sign will be by myself and Vice-Chair, Councillor Percival Okay Well thank you very much members for that that was one of the more exciting items we've had on the employment agenda before Thank you again officers for your input there that was very valuable so we appreciate it very much Okay there's nothing else we'll move on to items for information and we have one, two, three quarterly reports to look at so which officer will be introducing these please starting with the retention and turnover I'll be presenting the quarter three retention and turnover report and then I'm doing both quarter four reports Okay so you've got a quarter each Yeah Well Jonathan we'll start with you then please so the quarter three retention and turnover Thank you I'd just like to share my screen because I've put together a little presentation Okay good afternoon everyone So I'm currently presenting the quarter three for 2020 to 2021 turnover and retention report This is to provide an analysis of turnover of staff between the 1st of October and 31st of December last year The goal is to highlight trends to perform recruitment decisions and support development of an effective resource strategy to achieve our goals One of the first parts of the report relating to turnover I'd like to highlight some of the key trends for you first of all the rate of voluntary leavers has been consistently consistently below target levels of 3.25% with a rolling average for the last four quarters showing a steady decline in the number of people leaving the organisation voluntarily The most, the areas with the most significant turnover at the moment are shared waste environment and housing We have something that we use to measure it called the stability index Our stability index at the moment is 75% which is unchanged since the previous quarter and what the stability index means is its percentage of people have been in their current roles for at least a year So a rate of index rate of 75% means that 25% of employees have changed roles or left the business since the same quarter last year This is broadly in line with our target of 80% which shows there is a balance of progression opportunities and avoiding any excessive turnover From quarter three employees could complete an online exit interview with the ability to request a follow up meeting with HR on the form All leavers are prompted at the point that the work is submitted to the HR team We have a current return rate of 59% which is much higher than the average for the whole of last year The reason for leaving is a compulsory field Previously we were asked about this in the report it mentions that it would give a person the opportunity to say no reason specified for leaving but this is going to be removed because we'd like to have a better idea of the reasons that people are leaving the business so that won't be a factor in the future quarterly report I would also like to look at recruitment trends which highlighted the most recent report So the rate of successful recruitment to vacancies remains very high with 91% of vacancies being recruited on the first attempt in this quarter No new apprentices started during quarter three New opportunities are currently being advertised There will also be some further management apprenticeships schemes being introduced over the next few months We've also had a series of HR induction and onboarding sessions have been introduced in this quarter that explains things like flexi-time annual leave and other working practices with follow-up meetings two to four weeks later HR have also started rolling out a new manager induction training session for newly promoted employees The goal of this is to ensure that we approve retention across all roles whether it's someone that might be starting to the council completely new and they haven't had the chance to be in the office and have the experiences of working within their team but also for people that perhaps are taking on new roles and new responsibilities making sure they're comfortable and giving them support required We had 21 agency staff across all departments and the main place that the agency staff of working is Greater Cambridge is shared planning which has 13 agency staff in quarter three We also established a casual worker bank in January 2021 resulting in eight new casual starters resulting in reduced reliance in agency workers so the goal is that we reduce them over time by utilizing the staff bank more So we've looked at the comparison of ethnicity statistics at South Cams District Council 2019-20 Cambridge and Peterborough census data 2011 and East of England census data 2011 show that we're officially underrepresented in all ethnicities but the reason for that is because 10% of employees were not providing ethnicity data however if you look at the proportions involved black and minority ethnic employees remain underrepresented as a proportion of the total The fact that we've introduced the new HR system relatively recently will enable reporting on employee profiles much easier than before because it's introduced a self-service module where employees can go in and they can update the details including ethnicity when they log in Find that I'd like to talk about some of the questions and information requests that were submitted at the previous meeting the quarterly report was discussed So 0.20 of the quarter 3 turnover report confirms the number of agency staff per service area which I've just outlined and this can be included in future versions of this report going forward information that's required The electronic exit interview form has a compulsory question that prompts employees to specify a reason for leaving we've removed the option to say no reason specified HR team are currently scoping training for all staff to take place over the next 12 months to support our disability confidence status this should support recruitment and retention of disabled staff and improve representation at the council In Appendix C the recruitment and apprenticeships the table of South Cowns District Council has two separate categories of not disclosed and not provided not disclosed means that employees actively tick the box whilst not provided means that they haven't ticked any boxes An additional Appendix E has been added to quarter 3 report This is showing a comparison of South Cowns District Council with the most recent census data Obviously when the new census data is published we can be able to update that and the comparators will be much more recent and finally the Apprentice Disability Graph in quarter 2 contain incorrect information the declaration of no has been removed from the graph for quarter 3 Does anyone have any questions about the report? Thank you Thank you very much for that very comprehensive update Jonathan I will ask members now if they have any questions around this particular report Jonathan, Heather Williams please Thank you, could I just clarify you said that there was something in the report that had changed I thought and then I didn't quite get what page it was so that's my first one and then on the page 36 is stability index I think that's a really important thing for us to be looking at and keeping an eye on because it's not just having the amount of officers that we need we want to keep that experience and quite often we put a lot into people's training etc so it would be interesting to see that and I think very useful for us as committee to see that on a service provision level rather than just overall I think that I've found it really helpful to have that breakdown on other issues and I think the stability index would be equally beneficial when trying to get a grasp of the potential across the council Thank you chairman Thank you Members I think there was a question there Jonathan from Councillor Williams in which page the changes you mentioned were on Have a little look at the update that I provided there were a few changes that we've made it wasn't about the exit interview was it the reason for leaving that's been removed as a potential Ah yes okay at the previous meeting I believe it was raised that there was a graph that showed a declaration of no that was one of the options that said no and there was a question of what no actually meant in terms of disability because I think that there's also there was also the option to say that a person didn't have any disability and I believe that a declaration of no it was just a mistake on the graph that's been removed now the individual has been put into the none category as opposed to no I believe it was just a clerical error thank you I don't think there are any more questions for you Jonathan so just to thank you very much for the report and for answering the questions that we had so yeah thank you very much for your time today thank you so we'll move on now to item 6 over to you Daniel yep so the first one I'll talk about is the turn over report so Jonathan talks about quarter 3 I am just going to talk very briefly about quarter 4 linking into the point that Heather just made with a stability index looking at it at service level that's something that we can go away and look at for the next quarter it is so using the data in the old system it was a very manual check so it will just need to check to see how easy it is to get all of that data together but hopefully we should be able to do that the main themes for quarter 4 for turn over the so the rate of levers was really really really minimal and I am saying really really really because it was very very low so we only had 7 levers in the quarter which is looking at quarter provisionally at quarter 1 data it looks like quarter 4 might more have been anomaly as opposed to the start of a downward trend the report itself goes into turn over by service area and the stability index figure we've got for quarter 4 has increased to 91% so that's compared to the figure that Jonathan mentioned in quarter 3 and then the expanding on the exit interview forms so last year it might have even been this time last year we started we moved away from line managers doing the exit interviews which traditionally how many we received was a mixed bag we made it an online form for HR to send out the link as soon as we know someone's leaving because we've now had 2 or 3 quarters worth of data we can see that the amount of exit interviews we're getting back is going up but it's still quite low so it's still in the 50% bracket what we've decided to introduce from now so from July 2021 is for HR to individually approach every lever as in an advisor or a business partner make contact with them to do the exit interview as opposed to passively giving someone an exit interview form and assuming that they will receive it so we would hope that that would have another we would have more people completing the exit interviews which means we'd obviously have better data and then can make decisions based on that let me just so there is a change in quarter four report we put more detailed information around the exit interviews and so 0.11 in the report then also include the two questions from the exit interview form itself which allows us to see the trend of what people are saying about how do you rate the following district council and would you consider working for the council again so we've added that information in my question if I can ask the question to you all would be if you found that information useful because we don't want to include this in the report if you don't find it useful but if you find it useful then we can have it in there for the next quarter and I think improvements Jonathan's already updated about friendships and looking at friendships for this year the casual worker bank just to expand on what Jonathan already said has been quite a success since it's introduced by having the casual worker bank it means we're going to reduce our agency fees which is obviously better for the council and that's the end of the retention and turnover report for quarter four thank you very much I'm sure there will be a few questions councillor sorry gone thank you I am very glad to see this information on the exit interviews because it was one of the things that we looked at in the recruitment and retention working party and I know that there was really a deliberate attempt to increase the number of exit interviews done and also the quality of the information coming from them so I think it's really good to see that here and I'd welcome that information being given to each meeting thank you thank you councillor Helm thank you chairman chairman I'm page 68 there is the SEDC ethnicity count and overall percentages I'm just asking and I don't expect an answer today but just how do we compare against what our local statistics are are we up down in different we must be very surprised if we are all spot on in every single different categories so how do we fare thank you chairman donya is that something that we can take away and look at how we compare to neighbouring authorities I can certainly look to find out the information and see how it might compare to either the city or other local authorities it would be dependent on them I guess releasing the information to us but I can look into that that's not a problem I'm so sorry chairman I don't mean compared to other local authorities compared to our population of south Cambridgeshire I mean if you want to go a bit wider it doesn't bother me but what I'm trying to say is how is this to compare to our particular population thank you chairman is that donya Helm easy that information to give so move one second let me open it up the report that Jonathan used did compare to the census information from 2011 so that's all I can say we can compare it to the 2011 data and we'll be able to do that pretty straight forwardly but obviously that's now 10 years out of date so it would be a case of looking at when the new census data comes in obviously updating it and doing that but I can do that that's not a problem I can probably compare them both on my screen now and just give you a rough idea if you'd like the information right the second or if you want to wait for later chairman I'm fine with waiting I don't think we can treat only you with the census meaning there must be other fairly reliable data we can use not just the census but just an approximation would be fine just that we don't beat ourselves up or we should be working harder in particular areas that's what I'm more looking at than chairman is that something that can be taken away don't you yes that's great thank you very much council head of williams thank you I decode the comments made by council about the usefulness of the information on page 58 I think that is very helpful to see just one question in relation to page 57 I just note that we've had a redundancy just want to be assured that that's the one often when there aren't any cuisine redundancies in the future I can't speak for so at the moment we've got change programmes happening across the council so I don't have a definitive answer that was a one off redundancy for one individual for one particular role but in terms of if there are any further ones across the council I think Susan would be best place to know that information okay that's all the questions don't you so thank you very much for the reports should I leave you all still in the spotlight for the next report let me just get the other report up so this one is the sickness absence yes it is okay so again this is quite a detailed report so I'll just kind of skim through the key points really sickness for quarter four dropped significantly again I'm going to kind of bring it up to date in terms of with quarter one data to say that it looks like again as it was for turnover sickness also seems to be an anomaly for this so our sickness does seem to have increased significantly in quarter one so so I guess a few points around the sickness dipping in quarter four it did also that compared to how sickness absence fell in the UK as a whole so it fell to 1.8% at the end of 2020 as I've stated in the report and the other kind of bigish theme I guess is that in terms of knowing the information about coronavirus the amount of absences that we have had in the council compared to the amount of absences that coronavirus has taken across the across the UK generally our numbers for coronavirus are really really low so that means that one of the reasons might just be because South Cambridge and we've got lower levels than the rest of the country or it might speak to the fact that obviously people are home working so things aren't spreading as much but then I guess it's just an interesting point to note because you would think Covid might be a quite significant reason for absence but at the moment touch words it isn't and hopefully it kind of stays like that for the council the top the top four sorry I've got a bit of feedback can I carry on talking I can hear you fine okay fine sorry about that so the top four reasons for absence are stress, depression and mental health, stomach, liver, kidney and digestion other and heart, blood pressure and circulation the top three or four normally stays roughly the same but for this quarter it seems to have changed up a little bit but that might also be because of absence falling so falling to such a low level so there are quite a few graphs there in terms of breaking down absence from a long term short term point of view and days lost to stress depression and mental health and that information we've covered so one point to notice at the very very end of the report we've included the information around access to our employee assistance programme so we had 14 employees access the CBT resources which is still 14 more obviously than none but it is a drop from compared to quarter three two employees had telephone assessments for counselling and 16 telephone counselling sessions took place so that doesn't necessarily mean 16 individual employees it just means 16 sessions so hopefully that information gives you a bit of a more of context to this substance that's it at the end of the report so unless there's any questions thank you very much for the update before we open up questions just to say the numbers on the amount of days lost to COVID isolation are actually really interesting from my point of view because I know obviously the COVID figures weren't included prior in the sickness results or the sickness figures so I think it's actually useful for us as a committee to see how many days are actually losing and you know quite scarily for the way service how many days they're losing due to COVID isolation I don't think we normally have an age profile with these reports but that might be helpful in relation to the absences reasons for absences okay so you'd want a cross check so reasons for absences and if there's any trends with age groups I can certainly ask that question for my colleague who's doing this quarter of the report and see what we can look at thank you counsellor Heather Williams thank you I agree I think it would be useful on the age profile and I know we've raised it before I think the response that was given to us then was that it could identify individuals particularly in the smaller surface area so I think the age groups would be helpful but we probably couldn't go into a sort of a service provision section so I'm supportive of what counsellor said as long as the figures are generic across the board so when we discussed it before because you have sometimes a team before people so you could be easy identifying someone so as long as it's not service breakdown then I think that would be very helpful no I didn't ask for it across the board just general I can't hear you sorry yes I was only asking for it generally not broken down by service any further questions members on this report no I don't think we have so Donia thank you very much I appreciate the report there and I think there's a few things to take away for the next meeting we have in three months time thank you right so we move on to item 8 members which I think would have been an update from the disability and confident task disability confident task and finish group which would have been done by Susan but unfortunately she isn't here today so what I might do I might ask counsellor Jim Johnson who had to write a written update of where exactly we are and if she could circulate that to myself and then around the committee I think that would be more useful albeit I don't think it has actually moved on at all since our last meeting but I will ask counsellor Jim Johnson if she would mind circulating something for our benefit members I think that is everything we have on the agenda today so I just say remind everyone our next meeting is currently on Friday the 15th of October and I will say thank you very much to our officers who have made the time today we appreciate your input and thank you very much members for your input as well and with that I will close the meeting Patrick thank you very much