Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The Chief Executive introduced the report and explained that senior management salaries were last fully reviewed in 2008 and since then there had been two senior management restructures. The recent senior management review led to changes to the portfolios of senior managers. However with the number of changes that have taken place since then it was now deemed to be appropriate to carry out an exercise to check that salary levels remained appropriate and continued to fairly reflect levels of responsibility and that the senior management grading structure continued to serve the Council effectively.

The Chief Executive explained that the review concentrated on 4 senior management posts with the Director Commissioning role not being included due to the retirement of the postholder at the end of October. Of the 4 posts two of the current postholders had approached the Chief Executive requesting a regrade as they believed their jobs had changed considerably and now incorporated additional responsibility. The Chief Executive highlighted that a regrading of posts did come with a degree of risk, for example any recommendation to increase salary had not been budgeted for and should a decrease in salary be recommended there could be discontentment among postholders. That being said, the Chief Executive emphasised that the request was reasonable and all employees had the contractual right to request a pay review. It was the Chief Executive’s view that responding to the requests by taking an independent look at salaries was reasonable in the circumstances.

Having declared a potential interest the Chief Executive left the meeting.

In response to a question the Head of Human Resources clarified that the current number of employees of the Council was around 340 compared to 660 in 2008. She explained that this number would further reduce to around 220 by 1 October 2014 due to the transfer to The Cheltenham Trust. She then explained that Paul Hancock from Hay would be meeting individually with the postholders to talk through their job and portfolios, job descriptions and person specs.

A member expressed her concern that one year ago the committee was told that these senior management posts were not significantly different and therefore would not be regraded. Postholders had received mentoring and coaching to facilitate their “slotting in” to the new roles at a cost to the council. However a year later these jobs were now being subject to a HAY review. She asked why, at the time of the restructure, the Committee was not told that those concerned had the right to request this. Other members regretted that at the time of last year’s restructure the risk that senior managers would request a review was not highlighted to members or put on the risk register. It was suggested that officers should look at what was said by the committee at the time including the reassurances given by the relevant directors.

In response the Head of Human Resources referred to the “slotting” process which had occurred last year and explained that at that time the change in portfolios was not seen as sufficient to trigger a pay review as the job responsibilities were not deemed to be substantially different. Since then however 2 postholders had approached the Chief Executive requesting a review and should this be refused then it was highly likely that a grievance would inevitably be submitted.  It was therefore seen as reasonable in the circumstances to take a look at the roles and grading.

.

A member asked why the regrading had not taken place at the time of the restructure. In response the Head of Human Resources explained that there had been changes to the portfolios but the view of management at the time was that these changes were not significant enough to trigger a re-grading exercise. She reiterated the fact that the contractual right to request a pay review was always there, and that an individual could request a grading review at any time, hence it was not seen that this risk needed to be highlighted in particular. She outlined the grading structure for senior managers as laid down in the report and explained that the Director Resources had been evaluated as having a higher degree of accountability compared to the other officers and was at Grade 3. She added that the HAY review would be an opportunity to see if the current vertical grading structure was appropriate for Cheltenham.

Members recognised that the officers concerned were also taking a risk in requesting a review.

Whilst it was acknowledged that managers were within their rights to request a review it was asked what would happen should junior staff request the same. In response the Head of Human Resources explained that all staff had the same right as senior managers and managers could agree for posts to be re-evaluated if there was good reason - significant changes were usually cited. She also made reference to the fact that the job evaluation panel met regularly and any regrading was carried out by this forum.

When asked whether the recommendations from HAY would be legally binding on the Council the Head of Human Resources explained that it was for the Committee to consider the findings of the HAY review although this was not, strictly speaking, contractual.  An individual did have a right to appeal against the recommendations and a formal grievance could be submitted. It was for the Appointments and Remuneration Committee to take forward the HAY review recommendations . She confirmed that the cost of the Hay review was £6,000.

The Head of Human Resources was asked what the effect of the HAY review would be on the annual pay award and the Chief Executive’s salary. She confirmed that senior managers were subject to the annual JNC pay award and terms and conditions and as the current JNC pay award related to those on £100k or less it was possible that there may be a request for local determination of the Chief Executive’s pay award.

A member also asked officers to quantify the additional responsibility and workload of those senior managers since they were appointed last year. The Head of Human Resources explained that this was principally a change to portfolios. In response to a question she also confirmed that senior managers were on three months notice.

A member referred to the request made by the Committee at the time of the last restructure that the Chief Executive take forward the feedback raised by the Committee during the appointments process with the managers concerned and asked whether the Committee could have feedback on that. The Head of Human Resources confirmed that this had been undertaken by the Chief Executive, but could not recall any undertaking to bring this back to the Committee as it was not the Committee’s remit, however she would raise this with the Chief Executive.

It was noted that a decision on the outcome of the HAY review would be taken at the next meeting of the Committee on 15 September.

A member said that when considering the outcome of the HAY review it should be clarified to members what additional responsibilities had been taken on since their appointments. In response, the Head of Human Resources confirmed that this review would focus on changes in duties from the appointment in the new post, rather than the additional duties which were taken on prior to appointment, as the postholders had accepted the roles in the restructure at that point.

Paul Hancock, HAY, circulated some information regarding the HAY evaluation process which would be useful for Members when looking at the outcome of the review at the next meeting. In response to concerns expressed by Members he confirmed that HAY would be looking at the jobs as they existed now. The Head of Human Resources agreed to provide members with an outline of the responsibilities to which the senior managers were appointed last year so they could make a direct comparison with the job responsibilities as they existed currently.

RESOLVED

To note that the Chief Executive has responded to two requests for a salary review and that the Committee would take a decision on the outcome of the HAY review at the next meeting scheduled for 15 September.